Posts from — March 2007

Alternative Title: The Deep Dish Problem

One of many great things about Chicago is Chicago-style pizza, aka “deep dish” pizza. If you like pizza, but haven’t had at least one of these gut busters from Gino’s East or Giordano’s, you have my pity. (I prefer Giordano’s but both are very good.)

Pizza chains like Domino’s or Papa John’s have tried to sell their own version of deep dish pizza, but they have failed. There’s just nothing like the authentic Chicago-style pizza.

Just as there are pizza chains who claim to sell deep dish Chicago-style pizza, there are lots of preachers out there claiming to do expository preaching. Unfortunately, there is no Giordano’s of preaching by which we can distinguish who is really doing expository preaching from those whose preaching is more like Little Ceasars. That is because preachers have different ideas of what expository preaching really is. Some “expository” preachers preach only a verse or two at a time rather than studying and preaching an entire paragraph of biblical text. Some would be expositors move sequentially through a book of the Bible but spend more time cross-referencing other biblical texts than they do explaining the text they are supposedly exposing. Others preach an entire paragraph of Scripture at a time, but they don’t preach through an entire book of the Bible. Each Sunday finds them in a different place in the Scriptures. So, because there are different ideas and definitions of what expository preaching is, it is not always easy to evaluate whether any one sermon really contains all the ingredients necessary for true deep dish preaching.

In this series, I want to explain one particular approach to exposition. It is the approach that I use in developing and delivering my messages. Like Gino’s East or Giordano’s, I think the approach I use is best. I think this not because I came up with it. I didn’t come up with it; I learned it from others, most notably Haddon Robinson who was my Doctor of Ministry mentor in Preaching at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary. So, the kind of preaching I do, which I will explain to you, is best not because I do it; rather, I do this kind of exposition because I self-consciously studied several methods and decided this one is best. By blogging about this in detail, I hope to convince you that it is best, too.^[1]

The title of this post refers to “biblical preaching,” but, so far, the body of this post has used the term “expository preaching.” Like Robinson, I use these two terms synonymously and interchangeably.

Haddon Robinson, in his book Biblical Preaching, offers the following definition of biblical or expository preaching:

Expository preaching is the communication of a biblical concept, derived from and transmitted through a historical, grammatical, and literary study of a passage in its context, which the Holy Spirit first applies to the personality and experience of the preacher, then through the preacher, applies to the hearers.

This definition states three irreducible elements to Robinson’s (and, therefore, my) approach to biblical preaching.

1. Biblical preaching is unified by one Big Idea.
Robinson’s definition claims that biblical preaching is “the communication of a biblical concept.” The singular “concept” is intentional, for Robinson advocates finding what he calls the “Big Idea” of the text. The conviction of biblical preaching is that within every paragraph of Scripture there is one single, all-encompassing point that must be discovered. Not only does the passage have a Big Idea, but the biblical sermon will have a Big Idea as well. The Big Idea of the sermon states the major applicational thrust of the preacher delivering the message.

2. Biblical preaching respects the original intent of the author.
A second distinctive element of biblical preaching is a respect for the text of Scripture; specifically, the sermon must teach the passage or passages from which the sermon is drawn. Robinson’s definition states that the biblical sermon is “derived from and transmitted through a historical, grammatical, and literary study of a passage in its context.” Thus, he argues, the meaning of the Bible is contained in the Bible itself and must be excavated like a fossil using normal hermeneutics. This means that the preacher is constrained to some degree by the passage itself in application.

3. Biblical preaching has an applicational thrust.
Unlike many approaches to expository preaching which do little more than teach the passage, biblical preaching seeks to apply the passage. Robinson writes that the truth uncovered in biblical preaching is that “which the Holy Spirit first applies to the personality and experience of the preacher, then through the preacher, applies to the hearers.” Note that the preacher goes first. As a mediator of the message of Scripture, the preacher is compelled by God Himself to bring his own thinking, feeling, and behavior in line with the truth taught in the passage. After he has made application to himself, he is then to make application to the lives of his congregation. According to Robinson’s definition, biblical preaching must contain the element of specific application. Any sermon that simply stays in the Biblical world may be true and accurate as far as it goes, but unless the truth is applied to modern believers, the preacher has done something less than biblical preaching. This is true becuase God’s Word was given to change lives. When a preacher handles the Bible like a historical artifact to be studied with interest but not necessarily obeyed, he fails to give the Bible the authoritative place God intended.

My son Jeffrey is a big fan of pajamas. For a long time, his morning mantra was, “I wanna stay in PJs all day long!”

Recently, though, I’ve started to make him get dressed each morning. I did this because his general attitude seems to improve when he is dressed, and because it is easier to get the kids ready for church on Sunday when they are used to getting dressed each day.

This morning I dressed Jeffrey without any fuss in jeans, then I went to put on his Thomas sweatshirt. He mildly protested that he didn’t want to wear the Thomas shirt—he said he didn’t like it, it hurt him—but he let me put it on him without too much fuss.

Just now, however, he remarked again that he wanted to take it off. “Why?” I ask, “It looks great and feels so warm and comfortable.”

“I’m not used to it.” Jeffrey replies.
“What do you mean?!”
“I’m used to just a sling.”

OK, little David. At least he’s alluding to a Bible story instead of the Little Einsteins, for a change.

P.S.: While I was writing this post, Jeffrey said, “Hannah’s eating chalk.” And she was. Yet another instance of this.

This afternoon I was driving through Ann Arbor, minding my own business and driving a safe speed for conditions as I made my way back from the boo. On my right, I saw a black Crown Vic waiting to turn right. Because of its make and color, I gave this car a second look. It had one of those black crash bars on the front, useful for plowing into another car that you may be chasing. It also a light right above the driver’s side mirror. Although it had no bubble gum machine on the top or markings on the side, it was, apparently, a police car.

After I passed, the driver made his right-hand turn and began to follow me, with another civilian car between us. I was unconcerned—I was not speeding and I had “clicked it,” so I saw no reason to be alarmed. Still, I kept glancing at the rearview mirror. The car followed me through two more turns, then continued past me as I entered the freeway onramp. I took one last look and saw a license plate that said, “NOTFUZZ.” (note: notmypic)

I don’t understand the reasoning that would lead someone to buy a car that looks like a police car. I really don’t understand why you would then add extras to the car to make it look more like a police car. Do these people like to scare other drivers? Do they enjoy having traffic in front of them slow down? We have such an epidemic of people driving slowly in the left lanes of the freeway here in Michigan. Why would you want to drive a car that causes all the cars in front of you to slow down in fear? I don’t get it.

Although…, perhaps those left-lane slow-pokes move over when they see the Fuzz coming up behind them. If so, then maybe this is the perfect car for me—the very vehicle I need to reduce my blood pressure and frustration out on the Michigan construction sites freeways. If that’s how it works, I want one. But first I have to get all cops in Michigan to drive Hondas.