Sunday, July 23, 2006
Modernity and Post-Modernity: Expository Preaching
Recently I have been following David Fitch's blog The Great Giveaway. Now, I'm no trained pastor who gives sermon's every Sunday or nothin', but I found this particular post on the topic of Expository Preaching, along with the dialogue in the comments section, to be fascinating. I was one of the participants, and would like to share the relevant aspects of the conversation in which I participated. Please allow me to indulge. It sort of picks up mid-conversation, but I think one can follow the basic point, and could go to the link if you so desire. Please feel free to comment on our comments if you feel lead :)
Nick Hill said...
David,
I just do not understand the false dichotomy between expository preaching and community. When the church gathers to hear the word preached, they gather as a community to hear from God and to live as a community in fellowship, mission, and service.
The early church as well as the first century Jewish culture, very much practiced expository preaching. A person would read a portion of Scripture, and then the teacher would explain what the text means. At this point, the people could ask him questions. I indeed think that this last aspect is missing today, but expository preaching is not the problem.
Here are some examples of "expository preaching" from Scripture:
Paul's charge to Timothy: "2 Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage-- with great patience and careful instruction. 3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear" (2 Timothy 4:2-3).
"26 Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, "Go south to the road-- the desert road-- that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza." 27 So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian {27 That is, from the upper Nile region} eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, 28 and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the book of Isaiah the prophet. 29 The Spirit told Philip, "Go to that chariot and stay near it." 30 Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked. 31 "How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him" (Acts 8:26-31).
Blessings,
Nick
Gordon Hackman said...
Nick,
I'm not sure that the scriptural examples you give of expository preaching really prove what you want them to. It seems to me like you might be reading something into these passages. The Timothy passage certainly does tell us to preach the Word with patience and care, but it seems to me like it might be an anachronism to read expository preaching into it.
As for the Acts passage about Philip, I think that one could just as likely be seen as encouraging narrative preaching as expository. In order for Philip to make sense of the passage for the Ethiopian, he would have to explain to him the narrative of God's work in the world which culminates in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Outside of that narrative the text from Isaiah makes no sense at all.
I don't think Dave's point is to completely reject expository preaching or the necessity for doing the exegetical work necessary to understand scripture well. His point is that we need more than this, that the work of exegesis and historical-critical scholarship should be subservient to the end of inviting people into the narrative world of the scripture and letting it become their story as well. Only then can it truly make sense to them. Otherwise, we are simply dispensing information to people whose minds are shaped by other narratives (in our case, the stories of secular modernity) which distort the way they hear the text or keep it from making sense.
Peace to you,
Gordon
Nick Hill said...
Gordon,
If Expository preaching can be defined as:
"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].
Then, I think that it can still be done narratively, in the sense that the individual passage is always explained and illustrated in the context of God's overarching story. I think why myself and others are so concerned with the undermining of expository preaching is that people will then take what they want to preach (whether that is N.T. Wright's newest idea, or their own new idea), rather than wrestling with the biblical text as given by God and then expounding that text to the people of God so that they can deal with God. The above passages of Scripture are expository in that the preacher is explaining what the text means so that the receipiants understand what God is saying to them.
Pastor Rod said...
Nick,
You said, "I think why myself and others are so concerned with the undermining of expository preaching is that people will then take what they want to preach..., rather than wrestling with the biblical text as given by God and then expounding that text to the people of God so that they can deal with God."
I've come to that conclusion myself. The reason that many are so resistant to the problems with expository preaching is that they cannot imagine anything better to take its place.
But those are really two different issues. Even if we can't think of anything better, we should acknowledge the limitations of a particular method.
Unfortunately, in many parts of the church expository preaching has been canonized. And these people are convinced that a pastor using this method is proclaiming "the very words of God."
Just admitting the limitations of expository preaching would be a giant step in the right direction.
Rod
Nick Hill said...
For your interest: I have been expositing the book of John evangelistically with unchurched non-Christian youth: Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, and nominal Christians the two past years and they keep coming back for more. Over food, we study the passage for two weeks in small groups and then on the third week I will usually preach from the passage. We have about 50 to 70 youth coming out. To see some of these youth two years later and how they have grown in their knowledge of God's word and have been transformed is amazing. I attribute this to nothing in me, but, I believe, because of their continual exposure to God's word in small groups and in the messages they have been transformed:
"For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12).
Food for thought: "There is, of course, more than one valid approach to biblical exposition. When the preacher surveys a long section of biblical text, he is able to expound on large ideas and present the grand flow of biblical logic in a panoramic way. When he deals with smaller sections in more careful detail, he can home in on specific issues and explain them in greater depth. There are advantages and disadvantages to both styles. Both methods have a legitimate place in biblical preaching" [John MacArthur, forward, in "The Message of the New Testament: Promises Kept by Mark Dever (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2005), 11].
Gordon Hackman said...
Nick,Thanks for your response to me. I don't think we are that far apart in reality. I certainly believe in doing serious exegesis and the other work necessary to understand scripture and I think Dave does too. Eugene Peterson has some wonderful stuff on this in his latest book "Eat This Book" where he reminds us that scripture is given to us in the form of a story, but also says that we should love the biblical text enought to do the best exegesis we can and understand the words as acurately as we can. I agree.
I think one of the big issues for Dave, though, is the difference between preaching and teaching. Dave believes that preaching should be primarily descriptive and invitational. That is, it describes the world of scripture and the world made possible through Christ and invites the hearer to submit to Christ and enter that world. It seeks to provide the hearer with a counter-imagined world over and against the picture of the world that we are continually bombarded with by the forces that shape our culture, such as the media, advertising, etc. Teaching, on the other hand is the place where we delve deeper into the text and explain to people the exegetical, historical, cultural aspects of the text.
I attend the church where Dave ministers and we have an hour before the service where Dave explains the passage and deals with the exegetical, historical issues of the text. Then, during the main service, the preaching is descriptive and invitational.
Concerning this statement:"I think why myself and others are so concerned with the undermining of expository preaching is that people will then take what they want to preach (whether that is N.T. Wright's newest idea, or their own new idea), rather than wrestling with the biblical text as given by God and then expounding that text to the people of God so that they can deal with God."
I think one of Dave's major points is that even when we do all the exegetical, historical, grammatical work, etc. that it is still possible for an agenda to be snuck into the preaching, and it is even more dangerous if we believe that having done all of the work makes us immune to this possibility.
Peace to you,
Gordon
Nick Hill said...
Gordon,Thanks for your clarification. Yes, I agree that we have to be aware of the sinfulness of our own hearts and our unconscious bias that we bring to the text that would set an agenda for our preaching instead of the Biblical text itself. Also, I think that with what Dave is doing bridges both worlds well provided that people go to both. I perfer both in one. However, it sounds like your church is doing some excellent things. May God richly bless you in the important ministry you are doing,
Nick
Jason Hesiak said...
Joshua, your "community as a unity of individuals, not some sociological 'otherness'" reminds me of the Adam Smith malady. Pastor Rod alreay addressed your points, but I wanted to mention that. It's one of the very things to which the body of Christ should run counter. Also makes me wonder who the angels of the churches are to which Christ addressed his letters in Revelations.
Nick Hill, to say that the early church practiced expository preaching, sorry if this sounds harsh, to me sounds rediculous. I mean, I guess if you think of expository preaching one certian way (a modern way, sort of), I could see how you would say that. But if you made that statement to Dionysius the Aeropogate, he would look at you with a "huh???" kind of dumbfoundedness. I too get excited when I hear of folks of other religions and cultures engaging with you in the scriptures, but at the same time I get weary that they are just being turned into Adam Smiths, with a Christian twist.
I mean, you said we "have to be aware of the sinfulness in our own hearts and our uncious bias", but that very phrase itself could just be a getting off the hook of modernization. What would you say to one of my favorite quotes (from a friend of mine), "Lets leave the analysis for the afterlife"? What does that mean? What implications does it have for the nature of learning and living, keeping in mind that all modern learning (and much of its very living) is analytic like disecting a pig ("When I am formulated, sprawling on a pin / When I am pinned and wriggling on the wall /Then how should I presume?" - T.S. Eliot) rather than synthetic? We are new CREATIONS. Where does the analytic urge come from?
Nick Hill said...
Jason,
The early church, in Jesus' time, taking its influence from its Jewish synagogue heritage would read a Scripture and then someone would explain what it meant (John Stott has written on this). How could this be modernistic? How could studying the Word of God in small groups make someone into a "Christian" Adam Smith? This is ridiculous!!
Jason Hesiak said...
Nick,
I definitely said that too harshly. Sorry. I can be that way sometimes (in other words, an ass). The essential distinction that I was pointing out, I think, is found in the idea of analysis that undercuts expository preaching. A lot of what has made me squirm in the pew when I've heard expository preaching is that its M.O. is to, like a modern scientist who assumes a certian abstraction, neutrality and objectification, plow into the scriptures with the unbeatable team of knowledge and a scalpel, with the pre-set aim of dissection and the help of a powerful non-local (totalizing) anesthetic. Ancients might have "explained" the scriptures, but we have to pay attention to how energies and scenes of action have been transformed and translated, and what voices and powers have been at work doing the translating and transforming.
In other words, just because back then they "explained" the scripture doesn't make that the same thing as the expository preaching that we now know. The Rennaissance (the time of transition from ancient to modern) artists who learned about human anatomy by dissecting the body had to sneak around in the morgues late at night because the body was considered in a way sacred, not to be plowed into the way we now regularly and habitually plow into bodies of humans and scriptural text.
I think a lot of times, in our discussions on "expository preaching" or whatever else and "narratives", its easy to miss the boat while reading it's name on the back as it sails away.
You seemed to hint at the need for translation when included in your quoted definition of expository preacing ("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") was the idea that it is contexualized.
Problem is that embedded in the very language of that definition is the idea of reading the name of the boat while standing on the dock instead of IN the boat, where the party is at (where the narrative is being lived). I could be off on my stated judgement in the last sentence, because the meaning of that definition does depend so much on its context, the overall message of the rest of the book in which it appears. But in general, the words "concept", "personality", "application", and in some cases even "transmission" for me raise big huge modern warning flags. Flags that say, "Hey you. Get off the boat. Go stand on the dock where you can see it better. Know it better. Communicate to OTHERS about it more clearly. Conveniently separate yourself from it like the inherent separation between an idea and a reality." A modern concept BELONGS to and inside of a modern self (mind), which then assumes the right to plow away with the scalpel. Problem is, then the boat sinks. No wonder we miss it!
Jason Hesiak said...
Oops, hit "log in a publish: on accident. Sorry about that. Meant to "explain" a bit more what I mean by "concept" and it's connection to "analysis". The very grounds that allow for analysis (the mode of expository preacing) are the same grounds that allow for the separation between idea (well, concept) and reality, mind and body. No one would ever "operate on" a body until they pre-supposed their sepration from it. That's the anesthetic. There's no empathy in analysis; but it is the very basis by which a narrative is lived out, written or "experienced". How many times have we cried in a movie theater? How bout in the middle of a sermon that is preached expositorily? This empahty similar to compassion. There's no compassion in exposition. They contradict each other.
Literacy [which, like "conception", analysis or exposition, requires a rising up OFF of the page] creates very much simpler kinds of people than those that develop in the complex web of ordinary tribal and oral societies [the kind of societies to which you refer in the early church in which they would "explain" the scriptures]. For the fragmented man createes the homogenized Western world, while oral societies are made up of people differentiated, not by their specialist skills or visible marks, but by their unique emotional mixes. The oral man's inner world is a tangle of complex emotions and feelings that he Western practical man has long ago eroded or suppressed within himself in the interest of effeciency and practicality." - Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media, p. 50
And David, I have patience. I know you're a busy guy. I'm just grateful that you take the time to write these blogs!
Jason
Jason Hesiak said...
Nick,A passage for a kick-start: "Jesus was certainly no theologian in the western sense of the word, beceause he was a Jew. Like the prophets before him he gave concrete biblical answers to the pressing questions of daily life - poverty, payment of taxes, feauding between relatives or colleagues, and daily subsistence. HE WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE DETESTED AS ARROGANT BLASPHEMY ANY ATTEMPT TO UNRAVEL AND NEATLY SYSTEMATIZE THE MYSTERIES OF GOD. The same holds true for Paul, whose letters addressed very concrete, contemporary, and local problems, and whose style reveals unmistakably rabbinic thought FORMS and lets Parisaic dialogue patterns shimmer through. All of his responses, even the most well-reasoned, seem curiously fragmentary, and remain, in truly Jewish manner, open-ended..." - from Paul: Rabbi and Apostle, by Pinchas Lapide and Peter Stuhlmacher, quoted in Our Father Abraham, by Marvin R. Wilson.
Now, I'd like to partially ignore the part of the above quote about how back then their "expository preaching" was about ordinary, everyday, concrete life. It could easily be said that contemporary expository preaching is full of concrete addresses. So there are two buckets I'd like to draw from that passage. One is simply the unexposed pride and arrogance behind the myths of modernity that lead to its various forms of analysis, which include current expository preaching. That's why you can always sense a funny inner conflict in a humble pastor trying to preach expositorily.
The other is the passage's addressing of the FORM of ancient rabbinic "explanations" or dialogue (the form of something is where the translation and trasformation to which we must pay heed is apparent). The passage says that to us ancient forms of "explanation" seems curiously open-ended and "fragmentary". Interesting, because in the quote I provided previously by McLuhan, he referred to our contemporary society as "fragmented". Such funny and ironic grounds for miscommunication and misunderstanding are symptomatic of the problems that arise with modernity. McLuhan was referring to the modern mass of man's fragementing along the assembly line of the factory or printed page of the mechanical press.
When we now think of ancient forms of "explanation" as fragmentary, we are flaberghasted by certain practices that were normal for those ancient "tribal, oral" men and taken for granted. In their culture, they acutally had the Word of God IN them - memorized. When they spoke they re-membered (exposition is a dis-membering). A rabbi might make passing and hidden (to us) reference to a whole other part (or "fragment") of scripture that completes the meaning of his statement, but is not included in what is actually spoken aloud orally.
Obviously for someone who has the entire OT memorized this isn't a problem. For us moderns who rely like a wife on visual alphebets to "complete" us ("literate man", whose "book" is on his book shelf, "where it belongs", rather than IN him), we are left feeling empty and confused, or "fragmented". It is at the very place of our dis-location (blamed by McLuhan on the printing press, and blamed by me here on the necessary grounds for modern analysis), in seeing and realizing the wholeness (and holyness) implicit in ancient man's having the entire OT memorized, where a modern man comes face to face with his fragmenting.
It is up to our exposition and analysis to reach all the way to the full and total completion of the content and meaning of the text, so as to close off the SYSTEM, encompassing and completing our being for us, RATHER THAN the GOD who is the is the "content" of the "exposition". It is this systematization, grounded in OUR analysis and/or exposition ("study of a passage in its context, which the Holy Spirit first applies to the personality and experience of the preacher") that the referenced passage claims Jesus would have "detested".
When a discussion's end is left open in the way of the ancients, the educational system is one based on mimesis (imitation). It's the doorframe around the opening that is left by the end-ing inherent in the nature of the dialogue. In ancient Jewish discipleship, common in Gallilee at the time of Jesus to which you made reference, the whole basis of the education system was that the "disciple", or Talmid (student) wanted to be just like the rabbi. I'm sure we've all heard the phrase "what would Jesus do" :) And I'm sure it also, at least to some degree and in some way, sounded cheap! That's because modern man is not seeking "completion" of his being by being like his rabbi (that was Jesus), but by his system arrived at by exposition and analysis. To a modern "WWJD", because all of the implications inherent in the phrase, sounds ingenuine (David mentions similar topics in his book). The unreconcilable difference between imitation and systematized knowldege (the very basis of modern education - certainly the way that I was educated) is similar to the previously noted contradiction between compassion and exposition.
Jason
Jason Hesiak said...
Also Nick,Not to differentiate between the "explanations" of the early church and those of contemporary "expository preaching" is to be Narcissistic. By that I don't mean arrogant. I mean not recognizing your own reflection in the differing ponds of ancient dialogue and contemporary exposition. You're hearing your own echo. "Explanation". "Explanation". Problem is, in the context of the myth of Narcissus, Echo is the wife of Pan. The Greek word Pan, meaning "all", is the root of the word that we know as "SYSTEM".
This is why I was talking about discipleship and systematization as contradicting way of completing our being; that we thirst like a wife after our systems to complete us. In other words, you hear yourself telling yourself that the "explanations" of ancient folks were "explanations", the "explanations" of contemporary "expostion" are "explanations". They're the SAME THING, right! Point being that through the ages of translation and transformation they have become two differnt reflecting pools which reflect two different images of man. Because the ancient echo seen in the ancient pool is left open, it leaves room for God to be the original image of the reflection. The origin of the modern echo is man's own urge to build the cave in which the echo can be enclosed.
Much of expository preaching is spent on the futile attempt to chisel our way out of the cave while remaining warmly and comfortably encolsed in the modern mythology that built it.
Jason
Pastor Rod said...
On a little lighter note. C. S. Lewis mentions something at the End of Surprised by Joy about the difference between "enjoyment" and "analysis." (He borrows this idea from someone else.) He says that it is not possible to enjoy something while we are evaluating it. This is a much simpler way to understand what Jason is talking about. When we analyze a text, we are placing ourselves above that text and treating it as an object. When we "enjoy" a text, we are allowing the text to change us.
Of course, both of these are important. But expository preaching tends to ignore (or render impossible) the experiencing of a text.
I don't mean this as any kind of a criticism of what Jason said. It was very useful. I just remember how confused I was when I first encountered McLuhan in college. I hope this helps to make the whole thing a little clearer.
Rod
Jason Hesiak said...
Thanks Pastor Rod. My friends often end up doing a lot of translating for me. Thanks; I like what you were saying. If you don't mind, however, I would like to make an adjustment. We are also being "changed" when we analyse the text. I think that's the whole point, why this is acutally an important topic. The question becomes what it is into which we are being changed. God doesn't stop moving just because we think we step outside onto the stillness of the archimedean point needed to do an analysis. In reality we don't reach any archimedian point. We just assume that the body and/or text stopped moving; we put it behind us in the past (we kill it), hence McLuhan's famouse photo in "the medium is the massage" of a horse-driven caravan being viewed in the rear-view mirror of a car.
And HEY! I thought I was being light and playful!
And FYI follks, as of my time of posting this blog, Nick has not yet responded...
Nick Hill said...
David,
I just do not understand the false dichotomy between expository preaching and community. When the church gathers to hear the word preached, they gather as a community to hear from God and to live as a community in fellowship, mission, and service.
The early church as well as the first century Jewish culture, very much practiced expository preaching. A person would read a portion of Scripture, and then the teacher would explain what the text means. At this point, the people could ask him questions. I indeed think that this last aspect is missing today, but expository preaching is not the problem.
Here are some examples of "expository preaching" from Scripture:
Paul's charge to Timothy: "2 Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage-- with great patience and careful instruction. 3 For the time will come when men will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear" (2 Timothy 4:2-3).
"26 Now an angel of the Lord said to Philip, "Go south to the road-- the desert road-- that goes down from Jerusalem to Gaza." 27 So he started out, and on his way he met an Ethiopian {27 That is, from the upper Nile region} eunuch, an important official in charge of all the treasury of Candace, queen of the Ethiopians. This man had gone to Jerusalem to worship, 28 and on his way home was sitting in his chariot reading the book of Isaiah the prophet. 29 The Spirit told Philip, "Go to that chariot and stay near it." 30 Then Philip ran up to the chariot and heard the man reading Isaiah the prophet. "Do you understand what you are reading?" Philip asked. 31 "How can I," he said, "unless someone explains it to me?" So he invited Philip to come up and sit with him" (Acts 8:26-31).
Blessings,
Nick
Gordon Hackman said...
Nick,
I'm not sure that the scriptural examples you give of expository preaching really prove what you want them to. It seems to me like you might be reading something into these passages. The Timothy passage certainly does tell us to preach the Word with patience and care, but it seems to me like it might be an anachronism to read expository preaching into it.
As for the Acts passage about Philip, I think that one could just as likely be seen as encouraging narrative preaching as expository. In order for Philip to make sense of the passage for the Ethiopian, he would have to explain to him the narrative of God's work in the world which culminates in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Outside of that narrative the text from Isaiah makes no sense at all.
I don't think Dave's point is to completely reject expository preaching or the necessity for doing the exegetical work necessary to understand scripture well. His point is that we need more than this, that the work of exegesis and historical-critical scholarship should be subservient to the end of inviting people into the narrative world of the scripture and letting it become their story as well. Only then can it truly make sense to them. Otherwise, we are simply dispensing information to people whose minds are shaped by other narratives (in our case, the stories of secular modernity) which distort the way they hear the text or keep it from making sense.
Peace to you,
Gordon
Nick Hill said...
Gordon,
If Expository preaching can be defined as:
"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].
Then, I think that it can still be done narratively, in the sense that the individual passage is always explained and illustrated in the context of God's overarching story. I think why myself and others are so concerned with the undermining of expository preaching is that people will then take what they want to preach (whether that is N.T. Wright's newest idea, or their own new idea), rather than wrestling with the biblical text as given by God and then expounding that text to the people of God so that they can deal with God. The above passages of Scripture are expository in that the preacher is explaining what the text means so that the receipiants understand what God is saying to them.
Pastor Rod said...
Nick,
You said, "I think why myself and others are so concerned with the undermining of expository preaching is that people will then take what they want to preach..., rather than wrestling with the biblical text as given by God and then expounding that text to the people of God so that they can deal with God."
I've come to that conclusion myself. The reason that many are so resistant to the problems with expository preaching is that they cannot imagine anything better to take its place.
But those are really two different issues. Even if we can't think of anything better, we should acknowledge the limitations of a particular method.
Unfortunately, in many parts of the church expository preaching has been canonized. And these people are convinced that a pastor using this method is proclaiming "the very words of God."
Just admitting the limitations of expository preaching would be a giant step in the right direction.
Rod
Nick Hill said...
For your interest: I have been expositing the book of John evangelistically with unchurched non-Christian youth: Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, and nominal Christians the two past years and they keep coming back for more. Over food, we study the passage for two weeks in small groups and then on the third week I will usually preach from the passage. We have about 50 to 70 youth coming out. To see some of these youth two years later and how they have grown in their knowledge of God's word and have been transformed is amazing. I attribute this to nothing in me, but, I believe, because of their continual exposure to God's word in small groups and in the messages they have been transformed:
"For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart" (Hebrews 4:12).
Food for thought: "There is, of course, more than one valid approach to biblical exposition. When the preacher surveys a long section of biblical text, he is able to expound on large ideas and present the grand flow of biblical logic in a panoramic way. When he deals with smaller sections in more careful detail, he can home in on specific issues and explain them in greater depth. There are advantages and disadvantages to both styles. Both methods have a legitimate place in biblical preaching" [John MacArthur, forward, in "The Message of the New Testament: Promises Kept by Mark Dever (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2005), 11].
Gordon Hackman said...
Nick,Thanks for your response to me. I don't think we are that far apart in reality. I certainly believe in doing serious exegesis and the other work necessary to understand scripture and I think Dave does too. Eugene Peterson has some wonderful stuff on this in his latest book "Eat This Book" where he reminds us that scripture is given to us in the form of a story, but also says that we should love the biblical text enought to do the best exegesis we can and understand the words as acurately as we can. I agree.
I think one of the big issues for Dave, though, is the difference between preaching and teaching. Dave believes that preaching should be primarily descriptive and invitational. That is, it describes the world of scripture and the world made possible through Christ and invites the hearer to submit to Christ and enter that world. It seeks to provide the hearer with a counter-imagined world over and against the picture of the world that we are continually bombarded with by the forces that shape our culture, such as the media, advertising, etc. Teaching, on the other hand is the place where we delve deeper into the text and explain to people the exegetical, historical, cultural aspects of the text.
I attend the church where Dave ministers and we have an hour before the service where Dave explains the passage and deals with the exegetical, historical issues of the text. Then, during the main service, the preaching is descriptive and invitational.
Concerning this statement:"I think why myself and others are so concerned with the undermining of expository preaching is that people will then take what they want to preach (whether that is N.T. Wright's newest idea, or their own new idea), rather than wrestling with the biblical text as given by God and then expounding that text to the people of God so that they can deal with God."
I think one of Dave's major points is that even when we do all the exegetical, historical, grammatical work, etc. that it is still possible for an agenda to be snuck into the preaching, and it is even more dangerous if we believe that having done all of the work makes us immune to this possibility.
Peace to you,
Gordon
Nick Hill said...
Gordon,Thanks for your clarification. Yes, I agree that we have to be aware of the sinfulness of our own hearts and our unconscious bias that we bring to the text that would set an agenda for our preaching instead of the Biblical text itself. Also, I think that with what Dave is doing bridges both worlds well provided that people go to both. I perfer both in one. However, it sounds like your church is doing some excellent things. May God richly bless you in the important ministry you are doing,
Nick
Jason Hesiak said...
Joshua, your "community as a unity of individuals, not some sociological 'otherness'" reminds me of the Adam Smith malady. Pastor Rod alreay addressed your points, but I wanted to mention that. It's one of the very things to which the body of Christ should run counter. Also makes me wonder who the angels of the churches are to which Christ addressed his letters in Revelations.
Nick Hill, to say that the early church practiced expository preaching, sorry if this sounds harsh, to me sounds rediculous. I mean, I guess if you think of expository preaching one certian way (a modern way, sort of), I could see how you would say that. But if you made that statement to Dionysius the Aeropogate, he would look at you with a "huh???" kind of dumbfoundedness. I too get excited when I hear of folks of other religions and cultures engaging with you in the scriptures, but at the same time I get weary that they are just being turned into Adam Smiths, with a Christian twist.
I mean, you said we "have to be aware of the sinfulness in our own hearts and our uncious bias", but that very phrase itself could just be a getting off the hook of modernization. What would you say to one of my favorite quotes (from a friend of mine), "Lets leave the analysis for the afterlife"? What does that mean? What implications does it have for the nature of learning and living, keeping in mind that all modern learning (and much of its very living) is analytic like disecting a pig ("When I am formulated, sprawling on a pin / When I am pinned and wriggling on the wall /Then how should I presume?" - T.S. Eliot) rather than synthetic? We are new CREATIONS. Where does the analytic urge come from?
Nick Hill said...
Jason,
The early church, in Jesus' time, taking its influence from its Jewish synagogue heritage would read a Scripture and then someone would explain what it meant (John Stott has written on this). How could this be modernistic? How could studying the Word of God in small groups make someone into a "Christian" Adam Smith? This is ridiculous!!
Jason Hesiak said...
Nick,
I definitely said that too harshly. Sorry. I can be that way sometimes (in other words, an ass). The essential distinction that I was pointing out, I think, is found in the idea of analysis that undercuts expository preaching. A lot of what has made me squirm in the pew when I've heard expository preaching is that its M.O. is to, like a modern scientist who assumes a certian abstraction, neutrality and objectification, plow into the scriptures with the unbeatable team of knowledge and a scalpel, with the pre-set aim of dissection and the help of a powerful non-local (totalizing) anesthetic. Ancients might have "explained" the scriptures, but we have to pay attention to how energies and scenes of action have been transformed and translated, and what voices and powers have been at work doing the translating and transforming.
In other words, just because back then they "explained" the scripture doesn't make that the same thing as the expository preaching that we now know. The Rennaissance (the time of transition from ancient to modern) artists who learned about human anatomy by dissecting the body had to sneak around in the morgues late at night because the body was considered in a way sacred, not to be plowed into the way we now regularly and habitually plow into bodies of humans and scriptural text.
I think a lot of times, in our discussions on "expository preaching" or whatever else and "narratives", its easy to miss the boat while reading it's name on the back as it sails away.
You seemed to hint at the need for translation when included in your quoted definition of expository preacing ("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") was the idea that it is contexualized.
Problem is that embedded in the very language of that definition is the idea of reading the name of the boat while standing on the dock instead of IN the boat, where the party is at (where the narrative is being lived). I could be off on my stated judgement in the last sentence, because the meaning of that definition does depend so much on its context, the overall message of the rest of the book in which it appears. But in general, the words "concept", "personality", "application", and in some cases even "transmission" for me raise big huge modern warning flags. Flags that say, "Hey you. Get off the boat. Go stand on the dock where you can see it better. Know it better. Communicate to OTHERS about it more clearly. Conveniently separate yourself from it like the inherent separation between an idea and a reality." A modern concept BELONGS to and inside of a modern self (mind), which then assumes the right to plow away with the scalpel. Problem is, then the boat sinks. No wonder we miss it!
Jason Hesiak said...
Oops, hit "log in a publish: on accident. Sorry about that. Meant to "explain" a bit more what I mean by "concept" and it's connection to "analysis". The very grounds that allow for analysis (the mode of expository preacing) are the same grounds that allow for the separation between idea (well, concept) and reality, mind and body. No one would ever "operate on" a body until they pre-supposed their sepration from it. That's the anesthetic. There's no empathy in analysis; but it is the very basis by which a narrative is lived out, written or "experienced". How many times have we cried in a movie theater? How bout in the middle of a sermon that is preached expositorily? This empahty similar to compassion. There's no compassion in exposition. They contradict each other.
Literacy [which, like "conception", analysis or exposition, requires a rising up OFF of the page] creates very much simpler kinds of people than those that develop in the complex web of ordinary tribal and oral societies [the kind of societies to which you refer in the early church in which they would "explain" the scriptures]. For the fragmented man createes the homogenized Western world, while oral societies are made up of people differentiated, not by their specialist skills or visible marks, but by their unique emotional mixes. The oral man's inner world is a tangle of complex emotions and feelings that he Western practical man has long ago eroded or suppressed within himself in the interest of effeciency and practicality." - Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media, p. 50
And David, I have patience. I know you're a busy guy. I'm just grateful that you take the time to write these blogs!
Jason
Jason Hesiak said...
Nick,A passage for a kick-start: "Jesus was certainly no theologian in the western sense of the word, beceause he was a Jew. Like the prophets before him he gave concrete biblical answers to the pressing questions of daily life - poverty, payment of taxes, feauding between relatives or colleagues, and daily subsistence. HE WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE DETESTED AS ARROGANT BLASPHEMY ANY ATTEMPT TO UNRAVEL AND NEATLY SYSTEMATIZE THE MYSTERIES OF GOD. The same holds true for Paul, whose letters addressed very concrete, contemporary, and local problems, and whose style reveals unmistakably rabbinic thought FORMS and lets Parisaic dialogue patterns shimmer through. All of his responses, even the most well-reasoned, seem curiously fragmentary, and remain, in truly Jewish manner, open-ended..." - from Paul: Rabbi and Apostle, by Pinchas Lapide and Peter Stuhlmacher, quoted in Our Father Abraham, by Marvin R. Wilson.
Now, I'd like to partially ignore the part of the above quote about how back then their "expository preaching" was about ordinary, everyday, concrete life. It could easily be said that contemporary expository preaching is full of concrete addresses. So there are two buckets I'd like to draw from that passage. One is simply the unexposed pride and arrogance behind the myths of modernity that lead to its various forms of analysis, which include current expository preaching. That's why you can always sense a funny inner conflict in a humble pastor trying to preach expositorily.
The other is the passage's addressing of the FORM of ancient rabbinic "explanations" or dialogue (the form of something is where the translation and trasformation to which we must pay heed is apparent). The passage says that to us ancient forms of "explanation" seems curiously open-ended and "fragmentary". Interesting, because in the quote I provided previously by McLuhan, he referred to our contemporary society as "fragmented". Such funny and ironic grounds for miscommunication and misunderstanding are symptomatic of the problems that arise with modernity. McLuhan was referring to the modern mass of man's fragementing along the assembly line of the factory or printed page of the mechanical press.
When we now think of ancient forms of "explanation" as fragmentary, we are flaberghasted by certain practices that were normal for those ancient "tribal, oral" men and taken for granted. In their culture, they acutally had the Word of God IN them - memorized. When they spoke they re-membered (exposition is a dis-membering). A rabbi might make passing and hidden (to us) reference to a whole other part (or "fragment") of scripture that completes the meaning of his statement, but is not included in what is actually spoken aloud orally.
Obviously for someone who has the entire OT memorized this isn't a problem. For us moderns who rely like a wife on visual alphebets to "complete" us ("literate man", whose "book" is on his book shelf, "where it belongs", rather than IN him), we are left feeling empty and confused, or "fragmented". It is at the very place of our dis-location (blamed by McLuhan on the printing press, and blamed by me here on the necessary grounds for modern analysis), in seeing and realizing the wholeness (and holyness) implicit in ancient man's having the entire OT memorized, where a modern man comes face to face with his fragmenting.
It is up to our exposition and analysis to reach all the way to the full and total completion of the content and meaning of the text, so as to close off the SYSTEM, encompassing and completing our being for us, RATHER THAN the GOD who is the is the "content" of the "exposition". It is this systematization, grounded in OUR analysis and/or exposition ("study of a passage in its context, which the Holy Spirit first applies to the personality and experience of the preacher") that the referenced passage claims Jesus would have "detested".
When a discussion's end is left open in the way of the ancients, the educational system is one based on mimesis (imitation). It's the doorframe around the opening that is left by the end-ing inherent in the nature of the dialogue. In ancient Jewish discipleship, common in Gallilee at the time of Jesus to which you made reference, the whole basis of the education system was that the "disciple", or Talmid (student) wanted to be just like the rabbi. I'm sure we've all heard the phrase "what would Jesus do" :) And I'm sure it also, at least to some degree and in some way, sounded cheap! That's because modern man is not seeking "completion" of his being by being like his rabbi (that was Jesus), but by his system arrived at by exposition and analysis. To a modern "WWJD", because all of the implications inherent in the phrase, sounds ingenuine (David mentions similar topics in his book). The unreconcilable difference between imitation and systematized knowldege (the very basis of modern education - certainly the way that I was educated) is similar to the previously noted contradiction between compassion and exposition.
Jason
Jason Hesiak said...
Also Nick,Not to differentiate between the "explanations" of the early church and those of contemporary "expository preaching" is to be Narcissistic. By that I don't mean arrogant. I mean not recognizing your own reflection in the differing ponds of ancient dialogue and contemporary exposition. You're hearing your own echo. "Explanation". "Explanation". Problem is, in the context of the myth of Narcissus, Echo is the wife of Pan. The Greek word Pan, meaning "all", is the root of the word that we know as "SYSTEM".
This is why I was talking about discipleship and systematization as contradicting way of completing our being; that we thirst like a wife after our systems to complete us. In other words, you hear yourself telling yourself that the "explanations" of ancient folks were "explanations", the "explanations" of contemporary "expostion" are "explanations". They're the SAME THING, right! Point being that through the ages of translation and transformation they have become two differnt reflecting pools which reflect two different images of man. Because the ancient echo seen in the ancient pool is left open, it leaves room for God to be the original image of the reflection. The origin of the modern echo is man's own urge to build the cave in which the echo can be enclosed.
Much of expository preaching is spent on the futile attempt to chisel our way out of the cave while remaining warmly and comfortably encolsed in the modern mythology that built it.
Jason
Pastor Rod said...
On a little lighter note. C. S. Lewis mentions something at the End of Surprised by Joy about the difference between "enjoyment" and "analysis." (He borrows this idea from someone else.) He says that it is not possible to enjoy something while we are evaluating it. This is a much simpler way to understand what Jason is talking about. When we analyze a text, we are placing ourselves above that text and treating it as an object. When we "enjoy" a text, we are allowing the text to change us.
Of course, both of these are important. But expository preaching tends to ignore (or render impossible) the experiencing of a text.
I don't mean this as any kind of a criticism of what Jason said. It was very useful. I just remember how confused I was when I first encountered McLuhan in college. I hope this helps to make the whole thing a little clearer.
Rod
Jason Hesiak said...
Thanks Pastor Rod. My friends often end up doing a lot of translating for me. Thanks; I like what you were saying. If you don't mind, however, I would like to make an adjustment. We are also being "changed" when we analyse the text. I think that's the whole point, why this is acutally an important topic. The question becomes what it is into which we are being changed. God doesn't stop moving just because we think we step outside onto the stillness of the archimedean point needed to do an analysis. In reality we don't reach any archimedian point. We just assume that the body and/or text stopped moving; we put it behind us in the past (we kill it), hence McLuhan's famouse photo in "the medium is the massage" of a horse-driven caravan being viewed in the rear-view mirror of a car.
And HEY! I thought I was being light and playful!
And FYI follks, as of my time of posting this blog, Nick has not yet responded...
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
