This post is to all my friends, seminarians, and comrades in ministry who think I’ve “gone liberal” in my critiques of expository preaching. Recently a seminarian asked me “what I had against expository preaching?” He had read chapter 5 of The Great Giveaway and was struggling with it. The assumption was that anyone with a high view of Scripture would not discount the method of expository preaching. So in giving him an answer, I cut to the chase and said “because I believe John MacArthur leads to Bart Ehrman.” (Caveat – I am not trying to get too personal here. I do not know MacArthur or Ehrman personally. Yet their intellectual positions are so public and their vocations so on display, that I find them compellingly illustrative of what I am trying to get at here when it comes to expository preaching. Besides, I am sure each one of their respective ego’s can handle it 
).
Admittedly, what follows is a caricature of a particular kind of expository preaching. And I DO NOT want to discount all exposition of the proclaimed Truth of God revealed in Scriptures through Jesus Christ. So for the purposes of this post, my comments are directed at the kind of expository preaching as articulated in John MacArthur’s classic book on the subject Expository Preaching (EP).
My contention here is that there is a similar approach to Scripture in both MacArthur and Ehrman. Both put an exorbitant authority upon the historical-literary-critical and linguistic sciences. So, when McArthur says “the true text must be used. We are indebted to those select scholars who labor tediously in the field of textual criticism. Their studies recover the original text of Scripture … Without the text as God gave it, the preacher would be helpless to deliver it as God intended” (EP p. 28) he gives the textual critic way too much power. For these texts have been handed down, in apostolic succession, though the centuries by the Holy Spirit, church to church, preacher to preacher. I am glad for the textual critics in showing us the reliability of our texts, and the way to a more “original” text. But the gospel has been preserved by the church, who has by the Spirit preserved the Bible. I don’t need textual criticism to preserve the Truth of the gospel. The Holy Spirit through the church did it.
Then MacArthur says “in tandem, hemeneutics and exegesis focus on the biblical text to determine what it said and what it meant originally. Thus exegesis in its broadest sense will include the various disciplines of literary criticism, historical studies, grammatical exegesis, historical theology, biblical theology, and systematic theology.”(EP p.29) Because MacArthur’s hermeutic is driven by a Cartesian modernist approach to language, he puts an exorbitant authority on the preacher’s (and/or scholar’s) getting it right. In the end this is the outlier effect of an excessive individualist Protestantism.
All of the above, in my humble opinion, leads to John MacArthurites becoming Bart Ehrman’s.
Ehrman, a good evangelical growing up, took historical critical scholarship and eventually himself too seriously. He did the same two-fold move of placing his faith and trust in the powers of historical literary criticism and then in his own skills as a Biblical scholar. He believed the scholars (and eventually himself) more than the Story of God in Christ as revealed and given through the Scriptures. He spent countless hours and years finding and revealing the thousands of differences and changes in the texts (to quote Ehrman) “some people take to be inerrant.” And so Ehrman would famously say in one of his hubris strewn diatribes “Given the circumstance that (God) didn’t preserve the words, the conclusion seemed inescapable to me that he hadn’t gone to the trouble of inspiring them.” Can I say this? The seeds for these statements were sown in the kinds of assumptions necessary to do expository preaching as outlined in MacArthur’s book. Expository preaching, with its twofold hubris towards historical critical methods and the genius of the Biblical scholar, paves the way for an unfounded placing of authority in these two sources.
Bart Ehrman began studying the modern historical literary scholarship of the Bible at Moody Bible Institute and Wheaton College. What he didn’t realize is that for most evangelicals, we will (or at least should) believe the historical critical sciences only to the point they are helpful in illuminating the Word, Jesus Christ as Revealed. We will go along with historical critical disciplines only up to the point where they undermine Jesus as Lord. Once the undermining happens we must especially pay attention to putting these disciplines in their rightful humble place, in service to the Word, not over the Word.
In truth, the Scriptures and the church are inseparable. On the one hand, the task of preserving the truth of Scriptures is the task of the church and its leadership as passed down (through ordination) through the centuries. On the other hand, the Scriptures within the church guard the church through the Spirit from heresy and are sources for further discernment for the leadership. The fact that there have been many disagreements, tug of wars, and politics in the forming of the canon should not bother us for the sovereign Lord works through politics (even polluted politics). When we impose some scientific historical critical ideas of accuracy upon these texts from the outside, we not only set that standard as an authority over the church, we put that standard over the Scriptures. The task of interpretation must likewise be a communal historical traditioned work carried on by the church. There is authority in the preacher, but it is a chastened one born in recognition by and in submission to the church. No one pastor, sitting isolated in her or his desk on Saturday evening, can interpret a word of Scripture without being ordered within the ongoing orthodoxy of the alive tradition of the interpretation beginning in the apostles and passed on and on and on until Jesus returns. If I come up with a brilliant exegesis on Saturday night in preparation for my sermon for Sunday, it still must fall within the orthodoxy of the church. If I study very hard the text where Jesus declares he saw Satan fall like lightning, and then, after discovering that “lightning” meant the planet Saturn in its original Jewish context, I declare that Jesus is calling for us to worship Saturn, I would be rightfully accused of heresy, I DON’T CARE HOW GOOD MY EXEGESIS OR HISTORICAL SOURCES WERE. It is not therefore historical grammatical work that governs interpretation (although it helps), it is the historical tradition grounded in Christ and the apostles.
Unfortunately, ex-evangelicals like Ehrman, schooled in evangelical higher education which fell under the spell of modern confidence in the sciences, think that in order to have “intellectual integrity” we have to take these historical disciplines as far as they would go. Huh? To these people who bow to the idols and succumb to the hubris of modern historical critical scholarship, I suggest a good dose of some old fashioned French postmodernist literary scholars who help us put modern science in a more humble epistemological pecking order. I suggest a quick review of the history of modern historical scholarship which reveals itself to be a “tradition-born-discipline” of the Enlightenment rationality which itself is in the process of crashing and burning as a viable narrative and way of life in our time. Go ahead and follow it as a religion unto itself, but at least realize what you’re doing. My contention is, that because evangelicals cannot see the relativity of the narrative of modern historical critical studies (for it might in turn mean our own tradition is relative), they often give undue authority to it. This inevitably leads to many of the John MacArthur’s of the world at Moody and Wheaton becoming Bart Ehrman’s. These evangelicals take the fallible human disciplines to the point of actually putting their faith and trust in them over the Lordship of Jesus Christ as manifested in and through the Scriptures. I believe this deluded impulse (I KNOW IT IS IRONIC!) is encoded in the culture of excessive expository preaching.
So let us return to the Drama of God, His Story, the Scriptures alive inviting us into the continuing Mission of God. Let us proclaim the gospel, declare the truth out of Our Story in Christ as revealed in the Scriptures over the poor, destitute, self enclosed and the ones caught up in materialism. I believe in expository preaching in the sense we are called as messengers of God in Christ to proclaim the gospel, describe it, elaborate it, unfold it in its glory and invite people into it. I believe in critical exegesis to the point it is chastened and in submission to the intratextual integrity of Scripture itself (We have a wonderful one hour community Bible Study at the Vine in preparation for our service every Sunday). As I said in The Great Giveaway, the goal of preaching is “the unfurling a reality we could not see apart from being engulfed in the Story of God from creation to redemption.”
I say all this to clarify why preaching at Life on the Vine does not diminish the preaching of the Word. Instead by submitting the preacher and the community to Scripture, and calling ourselves to live into it (The Mission of God), the preacher in effect lifts up Scripture over us, not putting it at our disposal to be used as we each see fit. Sometimes, it takes a not so subtle statement to make a point, so I’m sticking with it, because John MacArthur I am sure can handle it. In terms of expository preaching, the real danger is that “John MacArthur leads to Bart Ehrman.”
For further reading by me on the subject of expository preaching, you can look here, here and here, here , here, and here and of course the 5th chapter of The Great Giveaway. If people want to see what preaching looks like at Life on the Vine, I have a powerpoint that might help. Perhaps I’ll post it next week.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
David,
Thank you for writing this. I always had a bit of a problem with textual criticism. It has great value but at the same time the textual critics seems to leave out the Holy Spirit, the church and oral tradition.
Do you think that someone may have ticked Erhman off sometime in his life and he is setting out to prove them wrong? I think that Erhman may have part of hims reacting with his emotions about this. What do you think?
Insightful, and makes good sense to me. Thanks.
May it some times be that the inverse is also true
the church can be left denieing God and that the scriptures (through use of studying the text) calls the church back its intended purpose.
Which I guess is the tension born from the reformation.
Its seems that time and time again as you look through history movements tend to react like a pendulum to the extremes of their predecessors –
and might it be that we need preachers (or maybe prophets is a better word) who aren’t faithfull to the church as an institution but faithfull to God who can call us as the church to account.
Yet at the same time the church equally calls theologians/preachers/prophets to be faithfull to God too
“These evangelicals take the fallible human disciplines to the point of actually putting their faith and trust in them over the Lordship of Jesus Christ as manifested in and through the Scriptures.”
I would disagree that MacArthur does this. While he does use “textual criticism” a bit more than say, a John Piper who plainly does much of his work out of his developed Biblical and Systematic theology, I don’t think MacArthur allows it to shade his preaching to the point of it superseding Scripture.
We are supposed to learn, preach, and study the whole counsel of God; not just topical or “live-like-Jesus-just-don’t-offend-people” gibberish that suits the pallets of the egocentric audience and world. Expository, done correctly, does not allow a preacher/teacher or the listeners to simply jump over text they don’t want to deal with; which is happening far too often in today’s churches; and more often than not this is due to human sensitivities.
Within expository methods, you can vary preaching with topical and narrative styles for specific reasons and purposes throughout the life of a people-group and because of events in the world. And both narrative and topical can be done in the expository method. It doesn’t have to be a pure line-by-line exegesis.
In looking at your working definition of expository preaching from some of your posts; it seems the beef you have is with those who do it poorly. To that I would say “Amen!” But, have you ever watched Piper (I’m sure you have)? There is no way you can come to the conclusions you have on expository preaching after watching him and how he proclaims Jesus and speaks to family, and community, and nation, and world. The way you describe it is so foreign to what he (and others, like Lloyd-Jones) do/did.
Admittedly, many (majority?) do it horribly – like a textbook, like a set of rules, like dry emotion – but I fear you have set up too many strawmans to make the point you want to make (dismissing the art entirely).
David,
Thanks for this excellent post. I think your contemporary examples are born out by the larger historical progression as well. I’m certainly glad for the return to the text of Scripture that resulted from the Reformation. But no movement is perfect. Those who carried on the tradition of the reformers placed exceedingly high value on the interpreter’s ability to arrive at objective truth through the historical-critical method. It was precisely this value (a very high view of the text) that laid the foundation for classic liberal scholars like Wellhausen, von Rad, and Gunkel (who–while geniuses–ultimately undermined the reliability of the text).
@ Jr: I appreciate your thoughts. Initially I had the same reaction to David’s other posts on expository preaching. However, it’s important to realize that David isn’t condemning preaching that takes the Bible seriously! After considering it for a while, I think those who are faithful expository preachers (and those who listen to them) are deceived by their own process *if* they think they can arrive at Truth in an objective way by following this process. Such notions are not biblical, they are modernist. David is trying to keep us connected to the tradition of the Spirit who speaks through Scripture in communities, rather than a tradition which elevates the individual exegete.
Thanks everyone for these comments. I’d like to address Jr on somethings.
Jr, I think you have missed my point and I’m kind of used to it frankly. For it seems again, if anyone critiques expository preaching, it raises a raft of emotional backlash. I did in fact qualify quite specifically in the post the kind of expository preaching I was addressing, to the point of focusing on MacArthur’s book. A straw man? This is a bit hard for me to take since I have painstakingly tried to describe which versions and what about which versions I am addressing. This can be seen in multiple posts. In the end, it is the assumptions behind this kind of preaching that I am asking people to think about – as illustrated by macArthur both in his book, polemic style and preaching practice. It is an unabashed confidence in historical critical methods, and the ability of the scholar to get it right (with the help of the Holy Spirit of course).
In addition, springing forth from this starting point, this “kind of expository preaching” leads to several ecclesiological and soteriological (specifically related to sanctification) problems which I have also trid to address. Yet many say I life up a straw man discounting what many now see as a problem in the church (read the commets in the prior posts).
You along with others in the Reformed evangelical camp want to argue that I am aiming at expository preaching poorly done. Do you consider mcArthur a poor example? I consider his the exemplar for expository preachers. I think it’s more.There are assumptions and practices here in the way expository preaching has evolved and now practiced by many that create a church of consumers and commodifiers of the Word. In the process we create a new works -righteouessness based on application points.
So the reason I rote this pots is to clarify that I believe my position, far from undermining Scripture, is upholding it as the Truth, not to be used, but submitted to, not to be defended via some flimsy apologetic, but proclaimed over the congregation as God’s Drama, into which we are invited into every Sunday to live out of the rest of the week in His Mission.
peace …
One quick question –
Does expository preaching “create” a church of commodifiers and consummers of the Word?
or –
does it reinforce? feed? nurture? leave the commodification and consumption of the Word unchecked and unchallenged?
I would propose that one of the reasons expository preaching is so fiercely guarded and defended, why you get such emotional responses whenever you bring it up, is precisely because it appeals to the way our culture has formed us and shaped us to seek commodification and to be consumers. This comports well with Vincent Miller’s thesis in “Consuming Religion” that consumer culture doesn’t so much impact WHAT we believe, but HOW we believe. And how beliefs are integrated and lived from in our daily lives.
So – expository preaching is liked and trusted because it appeals to our formation as consumers rather than creates our condition as consumers.
Just a (leading) question…
oh – i might have misread you dave. sorry ’bout that – i’m not sure you stated that expository preaching creates the commidification and consumption of the Word…you stated it a bit more complex than that above…
not the first time someone has misread you here! but my question still stands, i guess.
You are correct and I stand corrected. You did make it clear you were not dismissing the exposition of scripture in totality and it was a caricature. So that was my failure of nonrecognition. It was lost in all the rhetoric.
I believe that what the majority of the issue comes down to is in a point you mentioned; yours and others problems with the ecclesiological and soteriological viewpoints. There is the rub. Much of it (at least, the Reformed view) doesn’t fit the framework of where the postmodern mindset rests; this is undeniable. The method, therefore, must be assailed and set up against (or said to lead to) extremes. I’m sure you’ve read John Piper’s literature; do you believe he is in this class of placing criticism above Scripture? I’m honestly trying to get to the bottom of the real issue here. It is the theology, or is it really the practice?
And I am looking forward to that power point so I am better able to understand your method and where you are coming from.
Thank you for this post, Dave.
After all these years I am just now getting the idea of Scripture lived out in Community over the science of exposition. It takes courage to stand up and say “The Bible says it, I believe it, and that’s good enough for me.” (There is a song that goes like that) Of course this statement screams of individualism. Maybe we could rewrite it as “The Bible says it, we believe it, and that’s good enough for us”. And maybe, as we grow out of our deeply held individualistic mindsets, we will learn how to embody the Story of God as communities.
I have a question. How does reading, understanding, and obeying the Scriptures function in a marriage? Is it the same as community? Is it only to be done within a church community?
To me it’s presumptive that the Holy Spirit would have had to guide the original authors who wrote scripture more reliably than the churches and preachers who made various textual errors mistranslations/misinterpretations in later centuries.
Because if one is dealing with a Word of God thought to be revealed in history at a specific time and place, then the clearer our reading of those original words the more we know the Word of God. One can’t place subsequent readings, let alone subsequent textual errors, on the same level of revelatory authority as scripture itself.
The New Testament is the basis for all subsequent teaching. Without it, we wouldn’t even know that Jesus had existed.
Hey David – My Pastor once told me it is ultimately not the job of scholars to interpret the Scriptures, but those ordained to lead the church. It sounds like you would agree with him and how the church fathers viewed scripture. In his Against Heresies, Irenaeus writes that those, “reading the scriptures with attention…will find in them an account of Christ.” Commenting on this passage, Hall writes, “Irenaeus refuses to separate the authority of scripture and the task of biblical interpretation from the community of the church itself.”
Of course, contemporary thinkers echo this belief as well. Dallas Willard writes in his introduction to the Divine Conspiracy, “I assume that he did not and would not leave his message to humankind in a form that can only be understood by a handful of late-twentieth-century professional scholars, who cannot even agree among themselves on the theories that they assume to determine what the message is. The Bible is, after all, God’s gift to the world through his Church, not to the scholars. It comes the life of his people and nourishes that life.”
We do not interpret the Bible in a vacuum but in the context of the way the church has always read scripture. Thanks for encouraging a higher view of the church and of scripture.
Sorry – meant to include an encouragement to read Hall’s chapter on “The Sacred Scriptures” from “Learning Theology with the Church Fathers” put out by IVP.
Might I suggest that one reason that MacArthur does this to such an extent is that he’s a dispensationalist – and as such he doesn’t have a grand redemptive narrative to hook his sermons onto, so he goes into detail of the text instead.
If you want to look at the opposite pole of Expository Preaching, consider someone like Tim Keller. In fact, a number of preachers would improve their sermons no end if they simply picked on his habit of not thinking that preaching expositorialy meant preaching through the text sequentially.
[...] while reading through various blogs I have seen people hint at this whole idea of ordination. In a recent post by one of my favorite ecclesial dreamers, David Fitch, he makes the following statement: In truth, [...]
I think that there is a difference between preaching about the Bible and preaching the Bible. Faithful preaching makes the main point of the text the main point of the sermon which then points to Jesus Christ as what it’s all about. If we do this as preachers, people will be fed, people will rejoice in Jesus Christ as their supreme treasure, and our churches will be places where the gospel is embodied.
Someone who does this quite well is Charles Price from Canada: http://www.livingtruth.ca/.
Great post, thanks! Your explanation of the dynamics here is wonderful: concise and clear, something I can use with the rest of my church. I hope to steal from it liberally if that’s ok with you! (I love the book- very meaningful for me) The connection how MacArthur leads to Ehrman is really a wonderful shorthand. I wonder if for a number of people I might substitute Piper for MacArthur. Clearly their intentions are not being addressed, but the assumptions that underwrite their understanding of the nature of scripture and exegesis? Thanks for sharing this space on the net with us.
sir its good
Thanks for the article. I just finished listening to John MacArthur’s “Tale of Two Sons” sermon series from Luke 15. My wife and I were both shocked by the sheer volume of “assumptions” he introduced as he delved into the story. Now I realize that all these assumptions were the result of his overwhelming reliance upon textual criticism. When one overanalyzes something, they lose their perspective footing which may result in a departure from the truth itself.
I have a friend who had been schooled with the approach explified so clearly by John McCartur’s preacing and writings. Once my friend developped a better understanding of the detailed content of the Old Testament, the raw data he was confronted with could not meet his criteria of what ought to caracterize truth. He then told me he could no longer consider himself a Christian.
I had tried to warn him against the danger his rationalist and narrow approach to Scriptures and inspiration presented. To no avail. It’s a way of looking at things his denomination is just soaked with.
I suppose that what I have witnessed is no isolated incident. There is probably a terrible onslought going on out there, as thousands of young and bright people, out a desire to be coherent, feel they have to renounce Christianity because Scriptures is seemingly being found guilty as the tribunal set up by what they have been lead to see as the real source of authority: a self-agrandized reason requiring nothing less then total factuality and absolute accuracy.
All this is very very sad.
“You along with others in the Reformed evangelical camp want to argue that I am aiming at expository preaching poorly done. Do you consider mcArthur a poor example? I consider his the exemplar for expository preachers. I think it’s more.There are assumptions and practices here in the way expository preaching has evolved and now practiced by many that create a church of consumers and commodifiers of the Word. In the process we create a new works -righteouessness based on application points.”
While I didn’t necessarily disagree with the spirit of your original article I do take exception with this particular response. You offer some quality debate over MacArthur’s understanding of textual criticism and hermeneutics but I don’t think it is fair to label him as a commodifier of the Word. Maybe you are not intending to, but that response made it seem to me like you view him as an antagonist who needs to be overcome.
Today, biblically sound expository preaching is very much against the grain. It seems like every day that more and more churches seek a larger audience or desire to make themselves more culturally palatable. In those instances the last thing they would do is actually teach the Word in a simple, straight forward expository manner.
It’s getting harder and harder to find a church that actually teaches the Word of God here in Southern California. My (soon to be former?) church has recently made an unfortunate shift to a teaching style that offers very little biblical nourishment. The pastor is a great guy, talks a good game about Jesus and tells funny stories but we no longer go into the Word of God in any detail. I don’t even need to bring my Bible on Sunday anymore. “We” even quit having Bibles in the pews because it apparently made non-believing guests uncomfortable.
It’s like that with many Evangelical churches in this town. Sensitivity to current social issues, accommodation to the perceived needs of non-believers and relativistic ideals have replaced the actual teaching of the Word in any depth.
In comparison, last summer, Grace Church celebrated Mac Arthur’s 40th year of ministry. Over the years, I have listened to him speak on various occasions and am fairly familiar with his teaching methodology. Even though I don’t always agree with him theologically (or possibly hermeneutically & on textual criticism), I very much appreciate the fact that he teaches the Word of God in a straight forward manner. He usually gives his audience lots to insight to chew on. He also doesn’t use any spin to address difficult issues. He just teaches what he believes the Bible says. The longer I live in L.A. the more I find his actual teaching to be a breath of fresh air. It’s in that light that I would judge his teaching.
Again, maybe I misunderstood your article/response. I think you make some astute observations with regards to his understanding of textual criticism and hermeneutics but at the end of the day I would not let that make me view him in an overall negative light. I thank God for the presence of teachers like him in this world.
sincerely,
JR
FYI, there is another ‘JR” I am a different JR! lol
You seem very liberal to me, both for this, and for your views on women pastors. Why anyone would look for something to find fault with in John MacArthur is highly suspect. If you don’t use basic hermeneutical principles.in common everyday language, then how do you know this comment is addressed to you? Come on! You came to that conclusion by making some very basic hermeneutical assumptions. So, with that said. I encourage you to save your criticisms for men who do not have a high view of scripture and whose sermons are not spiritually nurturing and edifying.
I couldn’t agree more, myself, but not everyone is as clever as you seem to be. Or as I seem to be! HA! :-p
The Info Broker
http://www.free-affiliate.org
[...] claimed that the missional church might be loosing the high standard of expository preaching. And often we don’t exactly help to clarify this when we rail against individualized, overly rationalistic, disembodied information dumps which masquerade as the [...]
“Why anyone would look for something to find fault with in John MacArthur is highly suspect.”
It strikes me that this comment seriously misses the point. It isn’t amatter of “looking to find fault,” but rather of criticising what one actually sees as a genuine problem.
In any case, is MacAathur beyond criticism? He’s a falible human being like anyone else.