I do think it’s essential to recognize the examples of preaching we have in the Bible—particularly in the book of Acts—are of evangelistic preaching. It would be most like what today is called topical preaching. And, I think there is a place and a space for this in the lives of our churches.
In fact, allegorical, topical, and other methods continued to dominate preaching for centuries until John Chrysostom (347-407) began using a method we would recognize as expository. Chrysostom’s preaching was marked by a new skill set, including for example diagramming and breaking down sentences. Such a grammatical approach was new in his time and is not present in most of the world today. This type of preaching requires a literary sense and a knowledge of verbs, nouns, and sentence structures.
I admire Chrysostom’s preaching; that isn’t the issue. His model should be held up as a standard. Now, to be clear, it’s the approach I typically use. But I find it difficult to say something is a biblically mandated form when it is not found explicitly in the New Testament or even in the early church.
By the way, if you study the sermons of the Puritans, or leaders of great awakenings like Whitefield, Wesley, and Edwards, and even the prince of preachers Charles Spurgeon, you will find that they didn’t follow the kind of verse-by-verse expository preaching taught today. Their sermons would be more like textual preaching, which can be done in a biblically faithful way.
Making such claims is unhelpful and ultimately can undermine the development of preaching in much of the world. To be totally rigid and unyielding on an issue not clearly commanded in Scripture can become a legalism bordering on idolatry.
Instead, I think we must find ways to make expository preaching more accessible to people without the education of a John Chrysostom. Thus, I would say that a tribesman among the Pokot in Kenya can be encouraged to open the Bible, read the text, and explain what it says in a way that Western Christians might not find to be traditional verse-by-verse exposition. And when such a tribesman rightly divides the Word of truth, we should recognize it as a good, God-honoring, biblical example of teaching the Scriptures.
Topical preaching can be occasional as it is in my church. Quoting Hershael York again (in an interview in Preaching Today):
A topical series that is still textual and expository can give a congregation the 40,000 foot view of the Bible, reminding them that it’s really one story of redemption, not 66 unrelated books that say something nice about God. We can only understand the parts of the Bible in light of the whole, so we need to change lenses often enough to help us hone in on meaning because the part informs the whole even as the whole reveals the meaning of the parts.
And, let me add, I think a church that primarily teaches the Bible topically can also be faithfully teaching the word. It’s not my approach, but I’m thankful for churches that faithfully explain the meaning of the text through topically-driven sermons as well.
We’ll explore that more in the next post.
