Thoughts on Piper's Expository Exultation philosophy?

[SkylerGerald]

I've recently read some of Piper's Expository Exultation and listened to some lectures where he discusses this philosophy of preaching. He defines preaching (expository exultation) as:

“the preacher simultaneously explains the meaning of Scripture and exults over the God-glorifying reality in it. Exultation without explanation is not preaching. Explanation without exultation is not preaching.”

Do you find this to be a fitting definition/do you aim for this yourself in preaching?

 

[Solparvus]

I've recently read some of Piper's Expository Exultation and listened to some lectures where he discusses this philosophy of preaching. He defines preaching (expository exultation) as:

Do you find this to be a fitting definition/do you aim for this yourself in preaching?

Are you sure he intends this as a definition?

Preaching is itself an act of worship, in a meeting of worship, so the preacher must worship while he does it, and the preacher must lead others in worshipping God.

I wouldn't put it as a definition of preaching. There are other elements that make preaching to be what it is (eg. ambassadorial, authoritative, commissioned by Christ), but it is one element that separates preaching from mere teaching.

 

[SkylerGerald]

Are you sure he intends this as a definition?

Preaching is itself an act of worship, in a meeting of worship, so the preacher must worship while he does it, and the preacher must lead others in worshipping God.

I wouldn't put it as a definition of preaching. There are other elements that make preaching to be what it is (eg. ambassadorial, authoritative, commissioned by Christ), but it is one element that separates preaching from mere teaching.

Piper has gone on record saying its his definition

 

[Polanus1561]

Piper has gone on record saying its his definition

Are you sure he intends this as a definition?

Preaching is itself an act of worship, in a meeting of worship, so the preacher must worship while he does it, and the preacher must lead others in worshipping God.

I wouldn't put it as a definition of preaching. There are other elements that make preaching to be what it is (eg. ambassadorial, authoritative, commissioned by Christ), but it is one element that separates preaching from mere teaching.

The whole book covers the usual range of what preaching is, "heralding" etc. The book is quite broad and covers a lot of ground (the usual ground) of preaching. @SkylerGerald do you have a page number of what you are focusing on? I don't think Piper intends for a narrow definition.

 

[SkylerGerald]

The whole book covers the usual range of what preaching is, "heralding" etc. The book is quite broad and covers a lot of ground (the usual ground) of preaching. @SkylerGerald do you have a page number of what you are focusing on? I don't think Piper intends for a narrow definition.

I do have a page number for the quote (I got this from an ebook but I now have the physical copy in my hands). The quote was from p51.

I want to perhaps clarify my purpose in posting this:
I have heard some take objection to this as a description (or definition, what have you) of preaching. I am curious to hear the thoughts of those here on PB.

 

[Solparvus]

I do have a page number for the quote (I got this from an ebook but I now have the physical copy in my hands). The quote was from p51.

I want to perhaps clarify my purpose in posting this:
I have heard some take objection to this as a description (or definition, what have you) of preaching. I am curious to hear the thoughts of those here on PB.

What are the objections?

 

[SkylerGerald]

What are the objections?

If I remember correctly:
One is that having the word expository a part of a definition of preaching is too specific. That is, it is one thing to say that preaching should be expository preaching and it is another to say that preaching that isn't expository preaching is not preaching at all.

Another I've heard is that it puts too much stock into human affections in preaching and listening to preaching.

 

[Polanus1561]

If I remember correctly:
One is that having the word expository a part of a definition of preaching is too specific. That is, it is one thing to say that preaching should be expository preaching and it is another to say that preaching that isn't expository preaching is not preaching at all.

Another I've heard is that it puts too much stock into human affections in preaching and listening to preaching.

page 51 speaks about how preaching fits into worship, no?
This critique—is it based on reading the whole book or just one extract?

 

[Solparvus]

If I remember correctly:
One is that having the word expository a part of a definition of preaching is too specific. That is, it is one thing to say that preaching should be expository preaching and it is another to say that preaching that isn't expository preaching is not preaching at all.

Another I've heard is that it puts too much stock into human affections in preaching and listening to preaching.

I listened to how he defined "expository." It seems Piper's interest in use of that word is that the pastor strive to understand the text and its meaning, and that the preacher must explain the text in such a way that the people listening are convinced that this is indeed the God-intended meaning of the text. That's what a preacher must do, although it's not the only thing he must do. I can't imagine preaching without explanation. I'm not sure I've ever heard a sermon by a Reformed minister that did not attempt to explain and convince about the meaning of the text.

As for the exaltatory part, seems like he's advocating that the preacher himself have a right affectionate response to what he has learned about God in the text, and that should come out in the pulpit. He's right there. If the pastor isn't moved to worship by the text (whether that be in the form of joy, humiliation, sorrow, adoration, etc.), how will the people?

Worship and affection cannot be separated. Affection doesn't mean emotional outburst (expression =/= affection), but it does mean real internal faith, love, adoration, and heartfelt submission to God both in the preaching and in the listening. The Lord accepts no offering of worship where the heart is far from him (Mt 15:8), even if it is jot-and-tittle correct in its external form.

Like @Polanus1561 said, there's much more in the book. I would just go through the rest of it and find out what he means by these terms. There's likely a much fuller idea than the simple quote in the OP.

 

[SkylerGerald]

page 51 speaks about how preaching fits into worship, no?
This critique—is it based on reading the whole book or just one extract?

I listened to how he defined "expository." It seems Piper's interest in use of that word is that the pastor strive to understand the text and its meaning, and that the preacher must explain the text in such a way that the people listening are convinced that this is indeed the God-intended meaning of the text. That's what a preacher must do, although it's not the only thing he must do. I can't imagine preaching without explanation. I'm not sure I've ever heard a sermon by a Reformed minister that did not attempt to explain and convince about the meaning of the text.

As for the exaltatory part, seems like he's advocating that the preacher himself have a right affectionate response to what he has learned about God in the text, and that should come out in the pulpit. He's right there. If the pastor isn't moved to worship by the text (whether that be in the form of joy, humiliation, sorrow, adoration, etc.), how will the people?

Worship and affection cannot be separated. Affection doesn't mean emotional outburst (expression =/= affection), but it does mean real internal faith, love, adoration, and heartfelt submission to God both in the preaching and in the listening. The Lord accepts no offering of worship where the heart is far from him (Mt 15:8), even if it is jot-and-tittle correct in its external form.

Like @Polanus1561 said, there's much more in the book. I would just go through the rest of it and find out what he means by these terms. There's likely a much fuller idea than the simple quote in the OP.

Both of you gents are correct in saying that there is more to be presented than simply this quote I've pasted. My hope was that I would be able to present this quote as a stand-in for all of what Piper intends to say by this. Some of the critique I've heard comes from those who have studied under him so I would image they're fairly familiar with however Piper would nuance it.

@Solparvus I appreciate your thoughts there. Particularly as you note that affection is not by definition emotional outburst.

@Polanus1561 the critique is not so much on the book itself but the idea of expository exultation as a definition. The person who has made some of the critique (whom I consider to be a very fine expositor) hasn't read the book but took preaching classes under Piper.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I recognize JPiper qualifies as erudite, and is certainly recognizable as a teacher. He has written some (a little) in academic terms, and much more in popular terms. The latter surely flows from his voluminous preaching record. I would classify JP as preacher, much more than I would him as a teacher. Not that he hasn't or doesn't teach via his verbal output, or that his rhetoric is disorganized or unstructured. He is a gifted preacher, as evidenced by being a continuous pulpit-draw for decades at the church he served; and many would attest to how much they learned while listening to him.

But I think it is JP's introspective regard of himself, his self-study, that motivates his description (or definition) of preaching. If you think it through, it seems clear enough. JP asks himself: what am I doing and thinking as I engage in the act of preaching, and beforehand in the preparation for preaching? Answering this Q leads (so I think) to the aim of seeing other preachers and potential preachers cast in that same mold. His goal is to extract from the substance (the Bible) its meaning--as God embedded it--and to give glory to God in the act of expressing and presenting divine thoughts to others. I see no fault in such an effort at replication of his success in others.

Such "definition" does seem to me a bit idiosyncratic, a bit more subjective than objective. It feels to me more like a conclusion of the study and distillation of the preacher's task (as embodied in JPiper), rather than an analytic starting point. So, to offer one contrasting starting point: it would be in order to begin a study of Christian preaching by considering various words for "preaching" found in the Bible (e.g. κηρύσσω (verb), κήρυγμα (noun). These are standard Gk words, with original basic meaning and nuanced contextual import. A definition beneficial especially to a budding preacher would drill down to a foundational verbal level to get the core ideas, to which then would be added those elements and factors unique to the Christian minister's task. Again, the Bible should provide the majority (or all) of these additions.

Rather than making experience of preaching intrinsic to the definition--experience that does actually differ even across the spectrum of "successful" preachers--it makes more sense to me, and seems more encouraging to the full spectrum of personality and gifting functionally present in a wide variety of called men, to "build up" a complete and securely founded definition of the task obtained by as objective a set of criteria as may be found; and having done, move into a description of one or more embodiments of that definition.

While I can understand a rationale for offering up a two-word expression that tries to crystalize "preaching" for others to borrow or admire; it seems like an a priori of sorts, where JPiper (or another) then unpacks or "exegetes" that definition of preaching, rather than compiling a robust, well-defined package of insights, one that could be hard to "boil down" to any minimalistic term without losing a significant amount of the gain.

If I have misrepresented JPiper in any way unkind or disparaging, I apologize. This critique, even if ill-informed, was not meant harshly.

 

[Polanus1561]

I recognize JPiper qualifies as erudite, and is certainly recognizable as a teacher. He has written some (a little) in academic terms, and much more in popular terms. The latter surely flows from his voluminous preaching record. I would classify JP as preacher, much more than I would him as a teacher. Not that he hasn't or doesn't teach via his verbal output, or that his rhetoric is disorganized or unstructured. He is a gifted preacher, as evidenced by being a continuous pulpit-draw for decades at the church he served; and many would attest to how much they learned while listening to him.

But I think it is JP's introspective regard of himself, his self-study, that motivates his description (or definition) of preaching. If you think it through, it seems clear enough. JP asks himself: what am I doing and thinking as I engage in the act of preaching, and beforehand in the preparation for preaching? Answering this Q leads (so I think) to the aim of seeing other preachers and potential preachers cast in that same mold. His goal is to extract from the substance (the Bible) its meaning--as God embedded it--and to give glory to God in the act of expressing and presenting divine thoughts to others. I see no fault in such an effort at replication of his success in others.

Such "definition" does seem to me a bit idiosyncratic, a bit more subjective than objective. It feels to me more like a conclusion of the study and distillation of the preacher's task (as embodied in JPiper), rather than an analytic starting point. So, to offer one contrasting starting point: it would be in order to begin a study of Christian preaching by considering various words for "preaching" found in the Bible (e.g. κηρύσσω (verb), κήρυγμα (noun). These are standard Gk words, with original basic meaning and nuanced contextual import. A definition beneficial especially to a budding preacher would drill down to a foundational verbal level to get the core ideas, to which then would be added those elements and factors unique to the Christian minister's task. Again, the Bible should provide the majority (or all) of these additions.

Rather than making experience of preaching intrinsic to the definition--experience that does actually differ even across the spectrum of "successful" preachers--it makes more sense to me, and seems more encouraging to the full spectrum of personality and gifting functionally present in a wide variety of called men, to "build up" a complete and securely founded definition of the task obtained by as objective a set of criteria as may be found; and having done, move into a description of one or more embodiments of that definition.

While I can understand a rationale for offering up a two-word expression that tries to crystalize "preaching" for others to borrow or admire; it seems like an a priori of sorts, where JPiper (or another) then unpacks or "exegetes" that definition of preaching, rather than compiling a robust, well-defined package of insights, one that could be hard to "boil down" to any minimalistic term without losing a significant amount of the gain.

If I have misrepresented JPiper in any way unkind or disparaging, I apologize. This critique, even if ill-informed, was not meant harshly.

No criticism of you Rev. Bruce here.

But for all here, Piper makes the usual objective definitions of preaching.. word studies on euangelizomai, kerysso etc right after the pages where the OP's quote was presented. Piper knows the importance and indeed does lay down the foundational stuff.

Piper's burden is for the preacher to bring the objective heralding into the subjective—that it serves corporate worship by "showing of the supreme worth and beauty of God" (page 71). He also desires how themes like 'hospitality' play into the greater reality of the Christian life. He shows how a simple command to to show hospitality (Rom. 12:13) has a glorious reality behind it as a larger context—Christ has welcomed us (Rom 15:7). When the reality behind the text is proclaimed, this engenders worship.