# Doesn’t systematic theology rely on the Bible being thoroughly topical?



## Pergamum (Aug 17, 2008)

From twentytwowords.com, a cute little blog site: Bible « 22 Words

June 20, 2008 at 6:22 am · Filed under Bible, Following Jesus, Questions 

(A guest post from my brother Barnabas Piper)



*It’s odd: those most opposed to “topical” preaching are often the most committed to systematic theology.

Soteriology and pneumatology are topics, no?*




Whadya'all think?


Also, did Jesus and Paul and Peter preach expositorily or did they preach topical sermons?


----------



## panta dokimazete (Aug 17, 2008)

cool blog! 

...and interesting question...


----------



## timmopussycat (Aug 17, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> From twentytwowords.com, a cute little blog site: Bible « 22 Words
> 
> June 20, 2008 at 6:22 am · Filed under Bible, Following Jesus, Questions
> 
> ...



Judging by his letter to the Romans, Paul had the capacity to be an expository preacher, whether he did so or not we don't know. 

There is a significant difference between us and the Apostle. If he did in fact preach topically it was preaching inspired by the Holy Ghost. Our preachers today do not preach with that level of authority. For us, purely topical preaching when done without sufficient care or abused, results in an incomplete or slanted presetation of the biblical truth. Treating a topic within passage exposition can provide a check on such shortcomings and give hearers an additional confidence that what is preached is in fact God's word and not our own ideas.


----------



## CharlieJ (Aug 17, 2008)

Some people do tend to be opposed to topical messages, but the homileticians do not separate the two. Robinson talks about topical exposition and Chapell leaves room for it. The problem is that in common parlance expository means something like "series preaching through a book" when it really refers to a philosophy of grounding the sermon in the text.

Also, what does the Bible being thoroughly topical even mean? If topical means containing topics, then all writing everywhere is thoroughly topical. But for the phrase to be meaningful, it would have to mean that Scripture presents its doctrine in topical fashion, which it usually does not. 

Systematic theology is not grounded in the Bible's mode of presentation, but rather in the conviction that there is a unity in the Bible's teaching. The categories of systematic theology are artificial and should be chosen based on usefulness and clarity.


----------



## JohnGill (Aug 17, 2008)

I am opposed to what is now called 'topical preaching'. When I use the term 'topical preaching' I have a very specific type of preaching in mind. I am not referring to preaching through the Heidelberg Catechism, which can be considered topical, yet engages in exposition on that topic.

The links below will give you excellent examples of what I am referring to by 'topical preaching'

[video=youtube;qWT92eXHjb0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWT92eXHjb0&feature=user[/video]

And this one by his successor:

[video=youtube;tfDj2fvJ9VE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfDj2fvJ9VE&feature=related[/video]

Read any other sermons by these two men or their writings concerning theology. It is extremely shallow.

Jack Hyles - Jack Hyles Home Page

Jack Schaap - Hyles-Anderson College


This type of 'preaching' might be what the majority have in mind when they object to 'topical preaching.' It seems to be little more than read some scriptures and then give a motivational talk.

To classify it, think Church Growth Movement becomes ultra-conservative. Arminianism on display.


----------



## larryjf (Aug 17, 2008)

I think it would be very difficult to preach an expository sermon without understanding the systematic theology of the Scripture.
When we are preaching on a particular passage we must keep in mind the Scripture's entire system so that we don't look at the sermon passage to the exclusion of the rest of Scripture.


----------



## Grymir (Aug 17, 2008)

I think that Paul did expository preaching because of the 'he expounded the scriptures to them' statements in the book of Acts. And just reading some of his snippits in the bible, it wasn't the shallow stuff shown above.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 17, 2008)

Does topical preaching need to be shallow?

What place is there for generic overviews of the Gospel?

If you preachedon a street corner, would you exegete the text or give a general outline of what the text said and focus on the central topic of salvation?


----------



## jogri17 (Aug 17, 2008)

There is nothing with with so called topical sermons they just have no place in the sunday morning sabbath service


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 17, 2008)

They have no place in Sunday sermons?


Let's prove our theses a bit, okay.


----------



## JohnGill (Aug 17, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Does topical preaching need to be shallow?
> 
> What place is there for generic overviews of the Gospel?
> 
> If you preachedon a street corner, would you exegete the text or give a general outline of what the text said and focus on the central topic of salvation?



It doesn't need to be shallow. Look at the sermons on the Heidelberg Catechism by Kerstner. Or read various Puritan sermons which focus on only one topic. They are definitely not shallow. But today it seems that the majority of what is called 'topical preaching' is extremely shallow. It is geared towards generating an emotional response. This is the legacy of Finney's heresy.

Catechism preaching gives a general overview of the gospel.

If I was preaching on a street corner I would preach similar to Whitefield's style. Or as Wesley put it, 90% Law, 10% Grace. They need to know how great their sins and miseries are before they realize they need a saviour. But here in Fairbanks, AK you have to be careful when preaching on a street corner. You don't want to be confused with the Ruckmanite Church.

William Perkins' book on preaching The Art of Prophesying is a useful resource.

And then there is what the scripture gives for commandment:

Isaiah 58:1 Cry aloud, spare not, lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.

2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

Both of these can be easily followed when preaching on a street corner without becoming shallow. I follow the 3-fold breakdown of Question 2 of the Heidelberg Catechism.

The strength of the Reformation was verse by verse expositional preaching. When we get away from that as our central preaching we become weak. Compare Calvin with Finney.


----------



## CharlieJ (Aug 17, 2008)

Pergamum said:


> Also, did Jesus and Paul and Peter preach expositorily or did they preach topical sermons?



Great question.

Regarding Jesus, I think He used a variety of types. When simply giving new revalation, I'm not sure that either fits. In the synagogues and even in some of his NT sermons, many have concluded that they are midrash upon Old Testament texts, which would be equivalent to expository types. Some of that is conjecture, so you'll have to look up the idea and judge it for yourself.

Regarding Peter, I think the term kerygmatic preaching is most appropriate. He is preaching primarily evangelistically with a strong anchoring in the Old Testament, but he is not simply expositing the Old Testament. Instead, he is preaching the theology of the New Testament before the New Testament was written. Indeed, the book of Mark has often been suspected to be a written distillation of Peter's preaching. 

Paul's sermons as recorded in Acts are also kerygmatic, though some are topical (his warning to the Ephesian elders). I assume that his disputations in the synagogue were primarily expositional in nature, fitted into a kerygmatic framework. 

Most of his letters, however, are occasional. Many of them have a strong topical character, but always having parenesis based in doctrine. Romans, however, seems less occasional and more doctrinal. Accordingly, we see stronger expositional motifs, such as his exposition of the Abrahamic cycle in Romans 4. 

I'm sure there is a lot more that could be said, but that's as far as my expertise can go.


----------



## Casey (Aug 17, 2008)

The difference between contemporary preaching and the preaching of Jesus and the Apostles is that today's pastors preach ministerially (aka, administering the written Word of God). The Apostles at times would exposit different texts and at other times would be "free" from any particular text. If inspired by God and personally sent by him to proclaim a divine message, you need not be tied to the text in the same manner that today's preachers must be tied to the text. So it's not a one-to-one correlation, as if contemporary pastors are to preach the same way Jesus and the Apostles did.

Today's preachers, of course, aren't bringing new revelation. Systematic theology is the work of understanding God as he's revealed himself in all of Scripture, a task that must be done before one seeks to exposit a single passage of the Scripture if it is to be done faithfully. Topical preaching is, in a sense, a preaching of systematic theology (or more accurately a preaching of the exegetical basis for our conclusions reached in systematics). But this is to confuse a necessary step in interpretation with the task of preaching itself.


----------



## yeutter (Aug 17, 2008)

*catechism sermons*

Aren't catechism sermons topical sermons


----------



## Casey (Aug 17, 2008)

That depends on how the catechism sermon is preached in relation to the Scripture text that is read.


----------



## py3ak (Aug 17, 2008)

Terms must be defined. If by an expository sermon what is meant is an analysis of or running commentary on a text, I concur with Lloyd-Jones that on finishing that you have only preached the introduction to a sermon. Does a topical sermon mean an essay composed first and then supposedly founded upon a text? Then obviously that should not be really called preaching. But if it is an answer to the question, "What do the Scriptures teach about _________?" that is a different story.

I think the Directory for Public Worship strikes the right balance in its section on preaching the word. I bolded the phrases particularly relevant to this discussion.



> *Ordinarily, the subject of his sermon is to be some text of scripture, holding forth some principle or head of religion, or suitable to some special occasion emergent; or he may go on in some chapter, psalm, or book of the holy scripture, as he shall see fit.*
> 
> Let the introduction to his text be brief and perspicuous, drawn from the text itself, or context, or some parallel place, or general sentence of scripture.
> 
> ...


----------



## bookslover (Aug 17, 2008)

Expository preaching, topical preaching, theological preaching - all are fine and legitimate, as long as they are thoroughly grounded in the Scriptures.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 17, 2008)

RUBEN WROTE: 


_If by an expository sermon what is meant is an analysis of or running commentary on a text, I concur with Lloyd-Jones that on finishing that you have only preached the introduction to a sermon. _


THat quote ought to be framed!


----------



## SueS (Aug 18, 2008)

Y'all have been doing a very good job of debating the *theoretical* aspects of topical versus expository preaching but I came out of a church where the man presently in charge boasted of preaching "nothing but topical, practical sermons", not "high falutin' doctrine". For almost a year my dh and I were subjected to mostly motivational speaches peppered with Scripture that supported his position, anectdotes and jokes, and a constant demand for obedience, not to Scripture, but to *him*. He preaches what the people are to do, not what Christ has done for us. The result is that after three years of this man, the people of my former church are literally starved for the Word of God and the men, especially, follow him without question. 

I find that this form of preaching is basically a lazy man's way of gathering followers to himself. Instead of spending hours searching Scripture and teaching how it is to be applied to the hearers' lives, such a man merely preaches his own set of values and opinions and conditions the congregation to accept such teaching as profound prophecy. He does not preach "Christ and Him crucified", he preaches himself. It is an extremely shallow form of preaching without substance and which ignores the real power of God found in His revealed Word.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 18, 2008)

My homiletics professor said that a preacher should spend 1 hour in study for each minute preached.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 18, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> My homiletics professor said that a preacher should spend 1 hour in study for each minute preached.



YIKES! Is that healthy to be locked in a study for 60-plus hours per week....?!? 


When would he ever visit the sheep?


----------



## bookslover (Aug 18, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> My homiletics professor said that a preacher should spend 1 hour in study for each minute preached.



I'm glad that homiletics professors have that much free time just sitting around...

Many preachers have said that, as they accumulate years in the ministry, they are able to spend _less_ time in sermon preparation due to the many years of pastoral experience and stored-up wisdom they have garnered. Sometimes, if a pastor re-visits a text, he can also spend less time in preparation because the original ground work has already been done. Assuming his original exegesis is well-done, he doesn't have to go back and re-create the wheel at that point.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 21, 2008)

It seems that a great part of a pastor's ministry is outside of the pulpit and not on Sundays.


----------



## CharlieJ (Aug 21, 2008)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> My homiletics professor said that a preacher should spend 1 hour in study for each minute preached.



He must preach short sermons! Along the lines of what Bookslover said, I had a NT professor who also taught homiletics talk about front-loading his ministry. One reason he went straight for his PhD was so he could improve proficiency in original languages and study themes like the kingdom of God. That way, approaching an individual text is much easier. 

Imagine the difference in preaching through Leviticus if you have never studied the Israelite system before versus having done coursework on OT typology. Or, preaching through Revelation with and without having significant study in eschatology. 

Not to be too hard on your professor, though. He probably is just trying to pull hard in the opposite direction from the general tendency to slack off.


----------

