Bill Cook: Super Tramp: Sadly, it was to the exclusion of devotional, contemplative, topical and narrative. I would submit that one can preach devotional, contemplative, topical and narrative lessons in an expository way.
Super Tramp: Sadly, it was to the exclusion of devotional, contemplative, topical and narrative.
I do not disagree. I only said expository was not the only method. We can certainly combine and balance styles and methods. Most preachers do. I just believe some audiences (usually outside of a church setting) are better reached with an other-than-expository delivery. From the pulpit I think the "Apostle's doctrine" should be proclaimed, in an expository fashion. added: Expository is the only method I was taught.
Kevin A. Purcell: Super Tramp: At the risk of getting stoned may I mention; Expository preaching is not the only method ? I would strenuously disagree. Jim Shaddix has a book called Passion Driving Sermon that explains better than anyone why expository is the best way to go.
Super Tramp: At the risk of getting stoned may I mention; Expository preaching is not the only method ?
Kevin may agree with Jim Shaddix that expository preaching is the best way to go, but Jim Shaddix agrees with me that there are other methods.
( I told you a fellow can get stoned for saying that in a forum full of preachers. )
...
There are many methods of preaching, some of which are expository and some are not. For example announcing a text and reading it and then taking one word from that text and crafting a whole sermon around that one word. That's a method of preaching, but not expository.
Another - take a sermon idea based on the message inductively discovered from a passage of scripture and then craft a well-written narrative message that communicates the main idea of that passage in a way that faithfully and clearly reveals that discovered message but without every again referring to the actual text of the message. That is expository because it does one thing - it exposes the true meaning of the text.
Some people think that expository preaching is doing a running, verse-by-verse commentary on the passage. Wrong! That's not even praching. It may be a valid way to teach, but it is dealing with the text in a granular fashion. I say that validly biblical expository preaching must deal with the test in particular, in context of the chapter, book, Testament and Bible. If any of those are missing, then you miss the meaning of the text and case to expose the meaning to your congregation.
The reason I say expository preaching is the only authoritative preaching is because it is exposing the meaning of the text. I believe in Biblical authority and plenary verbal inspiration. God revealed the text and guided the writing of the words. He wants us to understand what they mean by understanding what they originally meant and then our job as preachers is to help our people understand how it means the same thing to us in a very different setting. That is the task of the expository preacher.
EDIT: By the way, I'm not saying the I-Beam method is not expository. I'm just saying that the way it teaches you to get at the expository message is clumsy because of all the confusing alliteration. There are far simpler and more effective methods of getting at the meaning of a text that are easier to remember and therefore consistently use in your own study.
I really like Wayne McDill's book for the first three chapters.
1. Do a sentence diagram of the text.
2. Make observations of the text
3. Ask interpretive questions
I do all of that without every opening a commentary or language study tool. I then open those to answer the questions of part 3 and confirm my observations in part 2.
I like Haddon Robinson's book for how he pushes you to come with a single Big Idea to communicate and then he helps you decide what the best structure you should use to communicate the text - key word approach, subject completed approach, narrative etc.
I like Chapel's book because it kind weds the two but also helps you focus on context.
Finally, McDill's book has a chapter on exploring natural analogies, that if you used it alone it would be worth the price.
And the book that was just added (see my previous post) for filler was Olfords book.
Kevin Purcell
Get my columns at Christian Computing Magazine
Kevin A. Purcell:The reason I say expository preaching is the only authoritative preaching is because it is exposing the meaning of the text.
Kevin,
I am not a preacher and in my church, topical sermons are often preached. Often, when I read about "expository preaching" it seems to me to relate to the verse by verse commentary thing you don't even consider preaching, or it asks for preaching "through" a book. I'm not clear if this is part of the definition.
While I understand the reasoning behind "exposing the meaning of the text" as oppesed e.g. to prooftexting the preacher's ideas about a current political or cultural subject, is it not often the case that several texts stand in relation to each other and only together lead to exposure of the teaching of "the whole scripture"? Is this what you mean with "the context of ... Bible" ? Will I find answers on this in your #1 suggestion, "Christ-centered preaching" (have bought it these days but not started reading) or do we all need to wait for your videos to be produced?
When someone asked about resources for topical preaching, no specific books in Logos came up. Rosie pointed towards a book that's not in Logos ( http://community.logos.com/forums/p/44532/331629.aspx#331629 ) by Donald Allen - can you recommend a resource that shows how to preach topically without losing the expository, biblical authority focus as you explained it (if such is possible)?
Mick
NB.Mick -- running Logos 5.1 RC 1 (Verbum Master, Minimal Crossgrade) on Win7 Home Premium 32bit & some Android apps on Kindle Fire
Kevin A. Purcell:Some people think that expository preaching is doing a running, verse-by-verse commentary on the passage. Wrong! That's not even praching.
Agree. Unfortunately, my present pastor has fallen into that rut.
Kevin A. Purcell:I really like Wayne McDill's book for the first three chapters.
Will get that book on your recommendation and the fact that I enjoyed fellowship with his son several years ago (i.e., we played golf together )
www.logos.com/support/logos5/mac/logging
I like and understand most of your post above. I really would like to watch your class. I need clarification on the term "authoritative." You are not saying expository preaching is the only legitimate method, are you? The only "authorized by God" method?
Another speed bump I hit here is the idea the text only has one lesson to convey. I know it has one meaning but I suppose a preacher can preach forever on the book of Romans and it will still benefit the audience.
I agree the verse by verse is teaching rather than preaching. I have heard Sunday School lessons preached and I have heard sermons taught. Not every preacher can teach well and most Sunday School teachers can not preach (and the vast majority of preachers can not sing! )
I do know what proof-texting is and recognize it quickly most times it is done. I still say I have heard many topical sermons, using a plurality of texts that remain faithful to what the texts really say. As NewbieMic asks, isn't there something to be said for considering the whole counsel of the Bible when conveying a particular message? (rhetoric here, I believe in plenary inspiration too.)
I really, really, really hope you can record your classes for later viewing and share them with us.
Super Tramp:I need clarification on the term "authoritative." You are not saying expository preaching is the only legitimate method, are you? The only "authorized by God" method?
I don't want to say that it is the only legitimate method. Jesus didn't do it and he's as legit as you can get. But he also was breathing scripture as he spoke so there's a big difference and saying his method of speaking is normative is a fallacy. If that's the case then we should be calling people who disagree with us broods of vipers and healing all the time.
What I mean when I say authoritative is this. If I'm preaching a text and I'm giving my opnion in a topical sermon that jumps off from the word grace in Eph 2:8 that has an outline that says Grace is Godly, Grace is Glorious, Grace is Giving, Grace is Gutsy etc., then I'm giving people my opinions. It may be biblical, but its not authoritative until I can point to a text that clearly says what I'm saying. If I use three passages then I have to do the painstaking work of studying all three of those passages to make sure I'm getting it right and even then I can fail.
When pick one passage and do the work to get it right, I am more likely to be right because instead of having 10-12 hours this week to work on three texts I have that time to work on one. I can show my congregation where I'm getting the truths from the text. They will say, "He's right because I see that God said it." If I don't get my point(s) or idea(s) from the text then its my word they have to trust. That's fine if I'm a really godly person, but what if I'm someone they've never met or what if they don't like me because I don't wear a tie. Then they can reject my message based on personality. If I am point to the text and letting it speak, then they cannot regardless of what they think of me. Or at least they shouldn't and no ground on which to do so. The other way they do - it's my opnion not the authoritative word of God.
Super Tramp:Another speed bump I hit here is the idea the text only has one lesson to convey.
Haddon Robinson explained it to us in class this way. The text has one meaning that God wanted to convey through the author. Each passage has one basic idea. My job is to inductively discover that idea and then communicate it in a way that will be interesting, appealing and inspiring. That's the job of the preacher.
He said, you have a target to hit. There's a bulls eye for each text. You're doing a good job if you hit the target and your message is close to the central meaning of the text. Too many sermons totally miss the mark.
Example. Matthew 18 - "when two or three are gathered together in my name there I will be also"
What's that about? If you don't study the passgage carefully by itself, then in context, you think its about God's presence in community worship. Problem is that isn't what the passage is about at all. It's about two agreeing about church discipline and if we agree together about how to redemptively discipline someone in unrepentant sin, then God joins with us.
If you preach that passage in a sermon about prayer you missed the target. If you preach that sermon about church discipline you hit it. If you preach it about redemptive church discipline and the partnership with God in dealing with brothers/sisters who fall away, then you hit he bulls eye.
I"ve heard sermons about that text that say something like ...
Prayer is done in partnership with others
Prayer is communion with God
Prayer is unifying believers
All sound good, but none of those are in that text.
Kevin A. Purcell: Super Tramp:I need clarification on the term "authoritative." You are not saying expository preaching is the only legitimate method, are you? The only "authorized by God" method? I don't want to say that it is the only legitimate method. Jesus didn't do it and he's as legit as you can get. But he also was breathing scripture as he spoke so there's a big difference and saying his method of speaking is normative is a fallacy. If that's the case then we should be calling people who disagree with us broods of vipers and healing all the time. What I mean when I say authoritative is this. If I'm preaching a text and I'm giving my opnion in a topical sermon that jumps off from the word grace in Eph 2:8 that has an outline that says Grace is Godly, Grace is Glorious, Grace is Giving, Grace is Gutsy etc., then I'm giving people my opinions. It may be biblical, but its not authoritative until I can point to a text that clearly says what I'm saying. If I use three passages then I have to do the painstaking work of studying all three of those passages to make sure I'm getting it right and even then I can fail. When pick one passage and do the work to get it right, I am more likely to be right because instead of having 10-12 hours this week to work on three texts I have that time to work on one. I can show my congregation where I'm getting the truths from the text. They will say, "He's right because I see that God said it." If I don't get my point(s) or idea(s) from the text then its my word they have to trust. That's fine if I'm a really godly person, but what if I'm someone they've never met or what if they don't like me because I don't wear a tie. Then they can reject my message based on personality. If I am point to the text and letting it speak, then they cannot regardless of what they think of me. Or at least they shouldn't and no ground on which to do so. The other way they do - it's my opnion not the authoritative word of God. Super Tramp:Another speed bump I hit here is the idea the text only has one lesson to convey. Haddon Robinson explained it to us in class this way. The text has one meaning that God wanted to convey through the author. Each passage has one basic idea. My job is to inductively discover that idea and then communicate it in a way that will be interesting, appealing and inspiring. That's the job of the preacher. He said, you have a target to hit. There's a bulls eye for each text. You're doing a good job if you hit the target and your message is close to the central meaning of the text. Too many sermons totally miss the mark. Example. Matthew 18 - "when two or three are gathered together in my name there I will be also" What's that about? If you don't study the passgage carefully by itself, then in context, you think its about God's presence in community worship. Problem is that isn't what the passage is about at all. It's about two agreeing about church discipline and if we agree together about how to redemptively discipline someone in unrepentant sin, then God joins with us. If you preach that passage in a sermon about prayer you missed the target. If you preach that sermon about church discipline you hit it. If you preach it about redemptive church discipline and the partnership with God in dealing with brothers/sisters who fall away, then you hit he bulls eye. I"ve heard sermons about that text that say something like ... Prayer is done in partnership with others Prayer is communion with God Prayer is unifying believers All sound good, but none of those are in that text.
I agree.
Thanks for the well written response. It must have been pretty cool to sit under Robinson.
Brother Mark: With blatant disregard for Giovanni's opinion..........However, if the cost is prohibitive for you, I recommend the I-Beam workbook which has the content without Mo actually teaching it via DVD for 7 hours... you can have that for $29.95.
With blatant disregard for Giovanni's opinion..........However, if the cost is prohibitive for you, I recommend the I-Beam workbook which has the content without Mo actually teaching it via DVD for 7 hours... you can have that for $29.95.
Oh boy! Seems like "Brother Mark"...LOL...I'm just ROFLOL...anyway, it seems like Bro. Mark lacks reading and comprehension skills. If money was tight, he recommended the workbook, and that's exactly what I had recommended...LOL...READ:
Giovanni Baggio: "...Just buy the booklet and you'll be fine. No real science to it."
"...Just buy the booklet and you'll be fine. No real science to it."
Oh boy, it amazes me how people just read and comment without understanding what they read...oh well. I thought this was funny!
Nighty night!
Giovanni
Kevin A. Purcell:That's fine if I'm a really godly person, but what if I'm someone they've never met or what if they don't like me because I don't wear a tie. Then they can reject my message based on personality. If I am point to the text and letting it speak, then they cannot regardless of what they think of me.
Now that makes a lot of sense... But on the flipside:
Kevin A. Purcell:The other way they do - it's my opnion not the authoritative word of God.
Did not Paul imply the responsibility rests on the listener whether they be too lazy to check the claims of the preacher or if they are commendable like the Bereans? I have little sympathy for a disciple who won't turn pages of his Bible to confirm that is indeed what God has said. I know some preachers who can recite many chapters and whole books of the Bible (my son is one) yet they will always hold a Bible in their hands and turn to the passage and read it to the congregation.
Looking at some of the prophets God used, it would be hard to accept their authority considering their clothing (Matthew 3:4) or lack thereof (Isaiah 20:2.) But regardless of their popularity the authority of their message was valid. The authority is embodied in the Word itself whether delivered by a child, a woman, or rocks crying out; whether delivered by expository preaching or responsive readings. I only have to keep my opinions out of the message. (and that is hard for opinionated me )
Giovanni Baggio: Brother Mark:With blatant disregard for Giovanni's opinion........
Brother Mark:With blatant disregard for Giovanni's opinion........
Not to get into a snit over the insulting manner that you characterized my reading and comprehension skills, I'll just point out that it was your opinion about the relative worth of the DVD that I chose to blatantly disregard. The fact that I agreed with you that the content is valuable (at least worth $39.95) and could be had without Mo teaching it for 7 hours was, obviously, beside the point.
Giovanni Baggio:Oh boy, it amazes me how people just read and comment without understanding what they read...oh well. I thought this was funny!
Me too Gio, me too
Dell Inspiron 17R SE 7720: Core i7 3630QM CPU, 2.4Ghz, 8GB RAM, Win8, 1TB 5400RPM HDD
Bibliography | "I read dead people..."
Brother Mark: Me too Gio, me too
Well that makes 2 of us then...
Super Tramp: Did not Paul imply the responsibility rests on the listener whether they be too lazy to check the claims of the preacher or if they are commendable like the Bereans? I have little sympathy for a disciple who won't turn pages of his Bible to confirm that is indeed what God has said. I know some preachers who can recite many chapters and whole books of the Bible (my son is one) yet they will always hold a Bible in their hands and turn to the passage and read it to the congregation.
I find it interesting that the Bereans were not Spirit-filled Christians when they went to go check the Scriptures. If they were, I wonder if the Spirit within them would have verified Paul's message. Jus' wonderin' is all...
Joshua G:I find it interesting that the Bereans were not Spirit-filled Christians when they went to go check the Scriptures. If they were, I wonder if the Spirit within them would have verified Paul's message. Jus' wonderin' is all...
I find it interesting a Spirit-filled Apostle would commend the Bereans for doing so and also bother penning half the New Testament if the filling of the Spirit was adequate to the exclusion of the written Word. Just wonderin; too.
Super Tramp: Joshua G:I find it interesting that the Bereans were not Spirit-filled Christians when they went to go check the Scriptures. If they were, I wonder if the Spirit within them would have verified Paul's message. Jus' wonderin' is all... I find it interesting a Spirit-filled Apostle would commend the Bereans for doing so and also bother penning half the New Testament if the filling of the Spirit was adequate to the exclusion of the written Word. Just wonderin; too.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying what you think I'm saying...
I'm just wonder if the context of these Bereans NOT being Christians has ever been taken into consideration by those who quote their actions.
Just posting this because some in this thread asked me to. Here's session one of the class. Tried to live stream it but the wifi at the school failed so I just recorded a screencast of my Keynote file and me going over the basics stuff I covered in session one. NOt much meat yet, but here it is.
http://www.kevinpurcell.org/?p=1663
Kevin A. Purcell: Just posting this because some in this thread asked me to. Here's session one of the class. Tried to live stream it but the wifi at the school failed so I just recorded a screencast of my Keynote file and me going over the basics stuff I covered in session one. NOt much meat yet, but here it is. http://www.kevinpurcell.org/?p=1663
Thanks Kevin!
Very interesting, Kevin.
What Does God Say and How Does He Say It? | Learn to Study the Bible Using the Inductive Method
Alliteration is good in some sermons, not all. In some is just wise not to use alliteration; especially when you have a J.G. Butler main point like "The Perspiration of the Gospel"
"Perspiration?" really?
DAL
Thx.
Thanks a lot!