Bible Exposition

I'm almost finished with Brian McLaren's book, The Church on the Other Side.  I don't like everything inside, and I would only recommend it thoughtfully.  But I have tried to pull out quotes here and there that I thought properly challenged current church practice and thought.  Here's another one of those.

    What did our churches become in modernity but places of Bible exposition (aka objective textual analysis)?  What was the ticket to spiritual leadership if not Bible scholarship (that is, credentials certifying our competence at applying modern analytical tools to Bible study)?  If our churches leaned to the liberal side, we tended to reduce the Bible to nothing but myths, and if they leaned to the conservative, we tended to reduce it to nothing but propositions, principles, abstractions, doctrines.

    Can you see how for maybe four hundred years this could remain interesting and engaging, but after five hundred, our culture would be ready for a new approach...something less reductionistic, something more holistic and maybe even mysterious?

(Pages 193-194.)

I would love to hear some reaction to this, especially from people who are like me who think that expositional preaching is the heart of all good preaching (whether narrative, doctrinal, etc).

Comments

[Greg]

"and if they leaned to the conservative, we tended to reduce it to nothing but propositions, principles, abstractions, doctrines."

A.W. Tozer said much the same thing (in PURSUIT OF GOD, I think), that churches today have opted for the preaching of "the dead letter of textualism." What he meant by this is the word without power; the word without life; the word in denial of the life-changing presence of Jesus Christ. There is no way to count the number of times I've sat through a sermon and heard nothing but words, and nothing about the transforming power and presence of Jesus Christ in the life of the believer. Doctrine and principles; principles and doctrine. It's deadly. And, sadly, in most evangelical churches, they don't even talk about doctine anymore, but "seeker-friendly" pop psychology. Double deadly.

[Todd]

We could also look at it in other terms McLaren has described in other settings. We have for too long operated "above/over" the text rather than "below/under" the text. The distinction drawn between the two implies on the one hand a text upon which we perform surgery and on the other hand one where the text performs surgery on us. Seems like the surgicial work of the two-edged sword should be felt from below rather than in our wieldy hands from above.

This does not reduce the need for textual work, it simply changes the way we approach the text. Expository preaching is not made mutually exclusive to a position from below it simply changes the product of exegesis to a dynamic, transforming story of the redemption work of God from a stilted, "believe my propositions" so I can be sure your in and on my side neo-legalism.

[Steve McCoy]

Well stated guys. I think those comments are both helpful.

So is it still "expository" preaching? Is there a better term to explain this dynamic exegesis?

[Tim Keller]

Dear All:

I think Jonathan Edwards can help us here. He believed the the main point of preaching was not just to make the truth clear but to make it real. He believed you couldn't truly change the heart without giving it clear truth, but on the other hand it was very possible to give out clear truth in preaching without changing the heart and life and affections at all. Edwards is remarkably set against the preaching of mere 'propositions.' He believed that the impression upon the heart at the time of the preaching was the real value of the sermon--not the information you could remember from it later on. (See Thoughts on Revivial, Yale ed vol 4, pp.385-389 and especially 397.)

[Tim]

I think McLaren has a lot to learn from Edwards. I'm halfway through Generous Orthodoxy and have been surprised by some of what McLaren has said. He laments evangelicalism's fascination with "me" and I agree. But McLarne's answer is "we". How tragic. Had McLaren read some Piper or Edwards he would recognize that then answer to "me" is not "we" but "God!" including the exclamation point.

What I get the feeling McLaren is fighting against is something I wrestle with too. It is when we see the clean, neat structure of our systematic theology (a term McLaren would not doubt hate) and the crisp logic and bedrock Biblical support and we fall in love with it. We preach it. We defend it. We dedicate ministries to it. And what gets missed is the glorious God that hearty doctrine is intended to usher us to. I love Reformed Theology. But the reason I love it is not for its own sake but because it provides me the clearest view of God's vast glory!

So again, McLaren is dissatisfied with the right things, but he's (in my opinion) taking the wrong path away from it. He's abandoning the wrong cargo for the journey and set the tilt of his sail just a few points off the course we should take. So, sticking to the analogy, I'm with him for a little while and then we part company.

I still believe that expository preaching is the way to go, but it should be expository preaching that leads us to Jesus and not to a dusty volume of systematic theology.

His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence – 2Pt 1:3 (ESV)

[DAO]

Gerhard Forde put out an insightful small book entitled "Theology is for Proclamation". In it he asserts:

"There is only one type of discourse that will do the job in the case of lovers: the proclamation, the self disclosure in the present tense, first-to-second-person address, the 'I love you', and the subsequesnt confession 'I love you too'! What happens in the church's proclamation is often similar: secondary discourse gets substituted for primary and so proclamation never occurs. Proclamation as primary discourse must be carefully distinguished from and not confused with systematic theology as secondary discourse. In spite of much apparent antipathy to systematic theology today, that is what is heard mostly from our pulpits - albeit systematics of a second-rate or rather unsystematic sort!"

So I think we are largely stuck on giving lectures ABOUT God, rather than proclaiming what He has to say to his creation. I find Forde's works to come out of "left-field as it were. A true Lutheran.

here here to expositional preaching that is anointed and truly comes across with authority, as only proclamation can! ...and the hearer knows it!

[Tim]

I am a block head. I was listening to Piper via the internet while I was reading and had to turn him off so I could focus. I just went back to him and guess what he's speaking on? Right! Preaching. God-centered preaching.

Go. Listen. Now. http://www.desiringgodradio.org/content/index.php/content/view/full/125>Here.

[Steve McCoy]

Rev. Keller, how did you find my site? Great to get your comment, and you are right about Edwards. The puritans are better at this than modern expositionists, in my opinion. They preached with a good deal of meaty application, a biblical and practical realness that is so much more than our pat answers in typical application today.

Oh, and sorry I can't pick up my Yale volume to check out your recommendations. I haven't won the lottery yet. If you want to mail me the set I can make my address available. :) Seriously, thanks for good thoughts here.

To the other Tim, I don't think you've read McLaren right. Can you point me somewhere in his book where he emphasizes the "we" over God? I've been reading it, and just because he emphasizes the "we" over the "I" (which he rightly judges as crucially biblical and quite absent in too many evangelical churches) doesn't mean he is emphasizing the "we" over the HIM.

I'll try to comment more on this and on DAO's comment tomorrow. Thanks for a great discussion guys.

[The Other Tim]

Steve, you may be correct, I may not be reading McLaren correctly. When I get home tonight I'll cite some of the things that made me think that.

Also, I didn't say that McLaren says us over God, just that when he leads us out of the "me" ghetto, he heads towards "us". I believe that if we head straight toward God, we will incorporate (properly) "us" as we are part of what God is doing, what he's interested in, and what he loves. I fear that McLaren is stopping one rest stop too early.

[Steven Ovalle]

Hi All, My brother DAO hooked me up with you all and I am psyched! I start by claiming ignorance to many of the people and writings you speak of. I am familiar with Piper's name, some of A. W. Tozar's works, one from Forde and only one of Edwards'. The others I know nothing of. So in reality I know very little as to these men of God. With that said, I would only point out that "The Gospel is the power of God unto Salvation". That Salvation is the work of the Triune God, each office holding sure and true to their responsibilities. That for everyone the Father has chosen, the Son has died for and the Holy Spirit will apply the Gospel to their souls.
We are but the weakest of tools that God has selected to present His awesome ways. Is it any wonder we bog it down with simplicity or technicalities? However, inspite of our incompetencies, He is able to save unto Himself all who's names are written in the Lamb's book! I am totaly encouraged to find so many awakened by Him to a desire to be the most worthy of voices. I am confident that God will bring to each of us the fullness of His blessings as we are brought to His word! Grace and Peace, SEO

[Steve McCoy]

Haha. "The Other Tim" is great. Next to Tim Keller that's who you MUST be. ;)

Looking forward to hearing more Tim.

[Steve McCoy]

DAO, thanks for the helpful quote. I don't know much about Forde, though I know the name. In my attempts at some doctrinal preaching, I found myself really unable to systematize because it cooled my preaching. I think learning how the puritans preached doctrine with such passion and application is helpful, but they often leave the text too quickly for doctrine.

Thanks for adding to the conversation. Look forward to more.

[Steve McCoy]

SEO, great to have you here. We all have to start with what we know and go from there, so I hope some of these names and books you hear about will cause you to go and read and grow.

Thanks for mentioning the simplicity of the gospel. Something we all stray from.

[pops]

WOW...2 sons....My O my is the Lord incredible in His dealings with mere men, or what!, that He has blessed me in such a way to see them commenting on the 'King of Kings and Lord of Lords' before I pass in my old age.

I'm blessed more than was Job....I'm even able to use the computer which Job never heard about.....'O'If I only had his wisdom n words.

[tim etherington]

What makes me think that McLaren shifts the focus from "me" to "we"? Essentially it is the bulk of chapter 4 of Generous Orthodoxy. Let me say that McLaren is not pitting "we" against Jesus any more than typical evangelicals pit "me" against Jesus. The idea is that Jesus did it all for me.

Above all kingdoms
Above all thrones
Above all wonders
The world has ever known
Above all wealth
And treasures of the earth
There's no way to measure
What You're worth

Crucified
Laid behind the stone
You lived to die
Rejected and alone
Like the rose
Trampled on the ground
You took the fall
And thought of me
Above all

Michael W. Smith, Above All

Instead McLaren says, "I used to believe that Jesus' primary focus was on saving me as an individual and on saving other "me's" as individuals… A growing number of people share Vincent Donovan's (and my own) discomfort with the self- and hell-centered approach to salvation… Generous Orthodoxy, p 98-99

What McLaren then offers in the next chapter is not an approach that centers on God, but on that focuses on the world. It includes what God is doing in the world, but it does not center on God.

I believe that if we have God as the center of our theology, that it is all about Him, then when we get to issues such as missions or apologetics or evangelism or caring for the poor or whatever they will all fit in place. We won't have to develop evangelism classes to motivate and equip the saints to talk about Jesus, they won't be able not to! When you get a new car or a new computer or come back from an excellent vacation, you drive everyone around you nuts by talking about it all the time. Why should those things be more exciting to us than God is? Because our theology centers on us (or we) and so God is ancillary to it. He is there to make me happy or to fill in the blank spots or to make sure that I am comforted.

But if God is the center of our theology, it we see him for all that he is and for all the power and glory of what he is doing, has done and will do in history, then all the other stuff begins to fit into place. It is all about him. My happiness, a focus on others, a care for the planet, a desire to provide for the poor, these things don't disappear or fade away. The gain real impetus as we recognize that these are things God is interested in and working in and so we join in what he is doing and our joy is increased.