# Topical Or Expositional?



## re4med (May 4, 2009)

Perhaps some of you pastors out there can best answer this question that I have long considered. Of course, anyone can answer.

What is a better practice in general: *To preach topically or expositionally?* *Why?*

As I prepare for ministry I find myself drawn most definitely to an expositional approach on most Sunday's in the pulpit. I do think there are times for topically based sermons, but in general I think an expositional practice is best. It seems, however, that it has been my experience that most pastors/preachers preach topically. What are your observations?


----------



## Whitefield (May 4, 2009)

re4med said:


> I find myself drawn most definitely to an expositional approach on most Sunday's in the pulpit. I do think there are times for topically based sermons, but in general I think an expositional practice is best.



Ditto, I could have written those words myself.


----------



## reformedminister (May 4, 2009)

I have done both in the past. In our worship services I read through the books of the Bible, one chapter of each Testament. If it is a long chapter I may break it up. I will preach an expository sermon on a verse or several verses found in one of the chapters. Currently we are reading through Genesis and Romans.


----------



## LawrenceU (May 4, 2009)

I preach almost exclusively in an expository manner. Frankly, topical sermons require way too much work if you prepare them properly. When I do preach a topical sermon it is because of an immediate need. That is rare. I find that very often if an urgent topic needs to be addressed it is right there in the text that had been scheduled long ago.


----------



## PresbyDane (May 4, 2009)

Expository is also the way I preach mostly


----------



## bug (May 4, 2009)

Series expository preaching if you have a regular ministry in a place. Here are my reasons why

1) If done faithfully it ensures that you teach the full council of God. There is no hiding from diffiult subjects, or hard passages. It teaches your congregation. Sometimes though, expository sermons can include topical aspects though as you draw from other relevant scriptures to expound your text. 

2) The scriptures were not given to us as a series of topic, but in the form of books, and therefore should taught like that. 

3) It helps us to see the big arguements of the book, as well as digging into detail.

If you are preaching a one off sermon, eg filling a pulpit as a visitor, sometimes topical sermons are helpful. However, even then, I would try and keep it pertinent to the text, and direcetion, teaching and application of the text.


----------



## CharlieJ (May 4, 2009)

When I get the chance to preach, I almost always do expository (as in expositing a single text), because it helps me stay on track and builds credibility with my audience, since they can see the ideas being drawn out of the Bible. I find that when pastors do "topical" regularly, they tend to make all the sermons come back to whatever idea is dominant in their thinking at that time. They all start to sound the same, and some important ideas never get touched.




bug said:


> 1) If done faithfully it ensures that you teach the full council of God. There is no hiding from diffiult subjects, or hard passages. It teaches your congregation. Sometimes though, expository sermons can include topical aspects though as you draw from other relevant scriptures to expound your text.



I agree with you in theory, although I think we (as in Reformed Christians) need to improve on our practice. Sometimes there is a mindset that the longer one spends on a book, the better he is expositing it. We could call this the "Martin Lloyd Jones" approach. Now, I'm sorry, but after 10 years (or whatever) in Romans, any hope of a "big picture" understanding is thoroughly dashed. It actually becomes mini-topical sermons in the guise of exposition. The whole counsel is never going to get preached that way.

I think pastors need to resist the urge to be uber-commentators, digging out every little thing found in the text, and instead focus on the major ideas. Through attention to the Bible's own literary structure, make the Bible intelligible to the laypeople. For people who want more detail, have special classes or refer them to good commentators. You should be able to preach through the entire Bible several times in the course of a lifelong ministry, or you're not really giving the whole counsel of God.


----------



## charliejunfan (May 4, 2009)

expositional with a certain topic everytime


----------



## fredtgreco (May 4, 2009)

LawrenceU said:


> I preach almost exclusively in an expository manner. Frankly, topical sermons require way too much work if you prepare them properly. When I do preach a topical sermon it is because of an immediate need. That is rare. I find that very often if an urgent topic needs to be addressed it is right there in the text that had been scheduled long ago.



I agree wholeheartedly. Good topical preaching is very difficult. It requires much thought as to what text, one after another. It requires great balance, to avoid hobby horses. It requires more discipline in keeping to the text, because it is far easier to go far afield.

I preach expositionally through books, but agree that there is a place for a topical series. I did that between my series on 1 Kings and 2 Kings. I wanted a break from the narrative. So I preached 8 week on "Sins That Entangle: Sins in the Church."


----------



## Ivan (May 4, 2009)

Why Expositional Preaching is Particularly Glorifying to God :: Desiring God Christian Resource Library


----------



## bug (May 4, 2009)

CharlieJ, 

I agree. 12 sermons on each verse is not how I would define series expository preaching. Moving at a reasonable pace is essential in my opinion. When Paul wrote Romans he didn't expect his readers just to read the verse, then come back a week later and read the next verse. Sometimes we can take a step back and preach the macro rather then the micro, we may take for example the whole of Romans ch 4 in one sermon as we work through the book in this way. When we come to Romans again we may then find that we preach 5 sermons on that same chapter as we go through the book in more detail.


----------



## KMK (May 5, 2009)

I agree that good topical sermons as part of a series are very difficult and time consuming. That being said, I looove good topical preaching upon a single doctrine. Only the best can do it well. (John Weaver is one)

Fred, is your "Sins That Entangle: Sins in the Church" series available online?


----------



## pepper (May 5, 2009)

At Geneva Reformed Seminary they require 6 credits in homiletics, 3 two credit courses. We had two lectures and the rest of the time we preached. We covered every type of sermon. They did not say one was better than the other. Even a topical sermon had to be throughly scriptural. We had to show the ability to do all types. Each of our sermons were criticed by the professor and fellow students. Just because a type of sermon is difficult does not mean that we should avoid the work. We should work hard for all our sermons


----------



## fredtgreco (May 5, 2009)

KMK said:


> I agree that good topical sermons as part of a series are very difficult and time consuming. That being said, I looove good topical preaching upon a single doctrine. Only the best can do it well. (John Weaver is one)
> 
> Fred, is your "Sins That Entangle: Sins in the Church" series available online?



I don't think so. But I am revamping the site. Remind me in a week or so. I'd do it now, but I'm still sick.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (May 5, 2009)

Interestingly, one could argue that the Dutch Reformed tradition of cathecetical preaching is a form of topical preaching.


----------



## KMK (May 5, 2009)

pepper said:


> At Geneva Reformed Seminary they require 6 credits in homiletics, 3 two credit courses. We had two lectures and the rest of the time we preached. We covered every type of sermon. They did not say one was better than the other. Even a topical sermon had to be throughly scriptural. We had to show the ability to do all types. Each of our sermons were criticed by the professor and fellow students. Just because a type of sermon is difficult does not mean that we should avoid the work. We should work hard for all our sermons



I certainly am not saying it should be avoided. I am saying it is a skill that should be worked toward. At my present skill level, there are not that many doctrines of which I have the command needed to cover them in such depth that it requires a series.


----------



## bookslover (May 10, 2009)

re4med said:


> Perhaps some of you pastors out there can best answer this question that I have long considered. Of course, anyone can answer.
> 
> What is a better practice in general: *To preach topically or expositionally?* *Why?*
> 
> As I prepare for ministry I find myself drawn most definitely to an expositional approach on most Sunday's in the pulpit. I do think there are times for topically based sermons, but in general I think an expositional practice is best. It seems, however, that it has been my experience that most pastors/preachers preach topically. What are your observations?



Better yet: theological (or doctrinal) sermons. I once heard John MacArthur preach a sermon on a particular doctrine, backing up his theological points with tons of Scripture. It was a refreshing change from the usual expositional preaching. We need more of it, I believe.


----------



## Theognome (May 10, 2009)

KMK said:


> I agree that good topical sermons as part of a series are very difficult and time consuming. That being said, I looove good topical preaching upon a single doctrine. Only the best can do it well. (John Weaver is one)
> 
> Fred, is your "Sins That Entangle: Sins in the Church" series available online?



I agree completely. Topical preaching demands a knowledge of great breadth, and there are precious few preachers today that can do so with the necessary brilliance. And yes, I agree that John Weaver is such a preacher. We don't agree on everything, but I have nothing but admiration for him. He is brilliant.

Theognome


----------



## Whitefield (May 10, 2009)

bookslover said:


> re4med said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps some of you pastors out there can best answer this question that I have long considered. Of course, anyone can answer.
> ...



I took "topical" to mean the same as "theological (doctrinal)."


----------



## KMK (May 10, 2009)

Whitefield said:


> bookslover said:
> 
> 
> > re4med said:
> ...



That's what I thought as well.


----------

