Preaching Styles
- Thread starter Jonathan
- Start date
- Status
alwaysreforming
Puritan Board Sophomore
I too am interested in this topic, and look forward to hearing some knowledgable reviews of different styles.
Just to get the ball rolling, as I understand it, two of the most "popular" styles of preaching are "Topical" and "Expositional" preaching.
"Topical" is where a pastor would take a certain "topic" (for instance, 'repentance') and then build his sermon from numerous Scriptures related to that topic. They might come from many different books in the Bible.
"Expositional" preaching would not "build a topic" from different Scriptures, but would focus on one particular Scripture passage, or one paragraph/chapter/etc., and then spend the sermon explaining the meaning the author was conveying to his original audience, and then perhaps expounding upon how that should affect us today. Expositional preaching is more than simply a "running commentary" on the passages that are come across, but that could be a large emphasis (such as John MacArthur does).
There is also "Historical Redemptive" preaching, which I think, is preaching the text with the main goal of showing how those texts were foreshadowing Christ (and/or His finished work), or how they are ultimately fulfilled in Christ. I have never had the pleasure of sitting under this kind of sermon, but I sure would like to.
My
(and this time I really do mean two cents, nothing more)
Just to get the ball rolling, as I understand it, two of the most "popular" styles of preaching are "Topical" and "Expositional" preaching.
"Topical" is where a pastor would take a certain "topic" (for instance, 'repentance') and then build his sermon from numerous Scriptures related to that topic. They might come from many different books in the Bible.
"Expositional" preaching would not "build a topic" from different Scriptures, but would focus on one particular Scripture passage, or one paragraph/chapter/etc., and then spend the sermon explaining the meaning the author was conveying to his original audience, and then perhaps expounding upon how that should affect us today. Expositional preaching is more than simply a "running commentary" on the passages that are come across, but that could be a large emphasis (such as John MacArthur does).
There is also "Historical Redemptive" preaching, which I think, is preaching the text with the main goal of showing how those texts were foreshadowing Christ (and/or His finished work), or how they are ultimately fulfilled in Christ. I have never had the pleasure of sitting under this kind of sermon, but I sure would like to.
My
(and this time I really do mean two cents, nothing more)I personally only preach expositionally for a couple different reasons. First, I think that many pastors ignore much of what the Word says since they only preach through a certain cycle of popular topics.
In fact, some people, such as most of my profs, would argue that the only real method of preaching is expository. Topical can be dangerous, because many times we choose the topic based on our own desires or what we feel the congregation needs to hear, and then outline our message finding Scriptures that fit our points. This undoubtedly often leads to Scriptures taken out of context. The best method of preaching is expository because it lets God's Word outline the message for you. You preach a text, and take your points directly from the text. Sure, this type of preaching can be dangerous too if abused, but it is much safer to firmly plant our preaching on God's word.
This also is helpful for preaching the whole counsel of God's word. Preaching topically often means that we ignore certain topics, doctrines and passages, whereas preaching expositionally through a book means that we preach all of the topics and teachings mentioned in the book, and therefore better attempt to preach the whole counsel of His Word.
Topical isn't always bad, but I just believe expository preaching is much safer and honoring to God's word.
[Edited on 20-12-2004 by Ranger]
In fact, some people, such as most of my profs, would argue that the only real method of preaching is expository. Topical can be dangerous, because many times we choose the topic based on our own desires or what we feel the congregation needs to hear, and then outline our message finding Scriptures that fit our points. This undoubtedly often leads to Scriptures taken out of context. The best method of preaching is expository because it lets God's Word outline the message for you. You preach a text, and take your points directly from the text. Sure, this type of preaching can be dangerous too if abused, but it is much safer to firmly plant our preaching on God's word.
This also is helpful for preaching the whole counsel of God's word. Preaching topically often means that we ignore certain topics, doctrines and passages, whereas preaching expositionally through a book means that we preach all of the topics and teachings mentioned in the book, and therefore better attempt to preach the whole counsel of His Word.
Topical isn't always bad, but I just believe expository preaching is much safer and honoring to God's word.
[Edited on 20-12-2004 by Ranger]
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
What think ye all of narrative theology and narrative preaching? I have heard that used in some circles. I have heard it abused and have also heard it done quite well/
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
I've sat under various types of preaching. The topical, sometimes referred to as Historic Redemptive, of the Dutch churches are strictly within the topics outlined in the Catechism. The traditional Dutch church will have one Catechism sermon per Sunday (hence the division of the Heidelberg Catechism into fifty-two Lord's Days), and one topical, usually in the morning service. This morning sermon is usually topical in the sense that it most often ministers to the particular need of the congregation, allowing the minister to do the job he feels he came to do in the congregation.
So this topical is never slanted by being narrowed without the context of a throrough theology, since that is covered in the afternoon sermons.
I've also sat under the expository sermons. Mostly that has been a sad affair for me. But nonetheless, I've also seen the benefits of that kind of approach. What was practiced in my church was a ten to fifteen minute lesson from an elder from a regulated exposition from the Confession or Larger Catechism. And then later the minister would give a sermon on the series he was taking up at that time. One gets to know the books of the Bible that way. And if you keep notes then you can always compare, and take down the many cross references that always come out.
If you're a Bible marker (I absolutely refuse to do that) then expository is what you would like, I think. But if you're a relational thinker, like I am, then topical is the one. But both can be beneficial. I don't think that one excludes the other, or that there has to be a choice between them. I think that a minister can do both, even with a Catechism sermon in there.
I've seen Bible markers in both scenarios. In the topical approach, interestingly enough, they tend to mark larger sections of the Bible; the with the expository approach individual verses get marked different colours. But I suppose that differs from person to person too. All the same, I won't do that, ever. Well, except once, with an NIV, which I didn't use as my regular Bible. (In thirty some years of going to church as an adult I have only had two Bibles I took along. )
For me the differences in the approaches has not been what type of preaching was practiced, but the faithful attendance to doctrine. I did not see any advantage to one or the other in that regard. But I suppose that it can be described as the difference between Biblical Theology, or doctrine, and Systematic Theology, or doctrine. But I don't think you can have one without the other.
So this topical is never slanted by being narrowed without the context of a throrough theology, since that is covered in the afternoon sermons.
I've also sat under the expository sermons. Mostly that has been a sad affair for me. But nonetheless, I've also seen the benefits of that kind of approach. What was practiced in my church was a ten to fifteen minute lesson from an elder from a regulated exposition from the Confession or Larger Catechism. And then later the minister would give a sermon on the series he was taking up at that time. One gets to know the books of the Bible that way. And if you keep notes then you can always compare, and take down the many cross references that always come out.
If you're a Bible marker (I absolutely refuse to do that) then expository is what you would like, I think. But if you're a relational thinker, like I am, then topical is the one. But both can be beneficial. I don't think that one excludes the other, or that there has to be a choice between them. I think that a minister can do both, even with a Catechism sermon in there.
I've seen Bible markers in both scenarios. In the topical approach, interestingly enough, they tend to mark larger sections of the Bible; the with the expository approach individual verses get marked different colours. But I suppose that differs from person to person too. All the same, I won't do that, ever. Well, except once, with an NIV, which I didn't use as my regular Bible. (In thirty some years of going to church as an adult I have only had two Bibles I took along. )
For me the differences in the approaches has not been what type of preaching was practiced, but the faithful attendance to doctrine. I did not see any advantage to one or the other in that regard. But I suppose that it can be described as the difference between Biblical Theology, or doctrine, and Systematic Theology, or doctrine. But I don't think you can have one without the other.
JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Jacob:
What do you mean by narrative preaching? Are you talking about the minister retelling the narrative in his own words, as if he adds some colour commentary to it? If that's what you mean, I've always taken a dim view of that. I think that if this is done, and I can see it being almost necessary sometimes, that it has to be done sparingly, and with a strict observance to what is known to be true and what is not. I've known people who were absolutely sure that something was in the Bible because they heard the minister say it, only to find it just wasn't there. Like the three wise men.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Assessor
I will respond more in detail to the narrative thing later. When I did pulpit supply in my Baptist days I was strictly expository. And if someone asked me to do a sermon next week it would be expository...too much James Boice and John Macarthur influence on me.
My pastor for one year preached through the Heidleberg at night and a book of the bible during the day. Joel Beeke advocated a similar approach in Sola Scriptura.
My pastor for one year preached through the Heidleberg at night and a book of the bible during the day. Joel Beeke advocated a similar approach in Sola Scriptura.
Puritan Sailor
Puritan Board Doctor
All preaching should be expository in some degree, whether it be topical, narrative, redemptive historical, or a series through a book. The point of expository preaching is to ground yourself firmly in the mind of the inspired writer to understand the intent of the text to the desired audience. Only then will we be able to understand what God wants us to get out of it too. It's all part of that whole context thing. If we wrest a Scripture from the original context, we will most likely lose some or all of the meaning intended. Even topical sermons should be based on a text in which the context clearly teaches the topic. This is probably what John was refering to with the topical sermons in Dutch circles. I know that whenever I visited Beeke's church, and in the Free Reformed church I was a member of, sermons were often topical, yet a critic would probably consider them expository because of the intense attention paid to the context, original intent, and how it applies to us today.
And it was probably grounded in one specific text using other texts for support/illustration. A true topical sermon does not have one specific text that it is grounded in, but the heart of the message is the topic. It doesn't sound like those Dutch sermons were topical, but expository to defend a topic.
- Status
