Newsletter #80
On the Need for Doctrinal Preaching
In case you missed it, Shohei Ohtani, a major league baseball player for my favorite team, the Los Angeles Angels, threw a 1-hit shutout and hit two home runs. In the same day. Check it out.
The Best Way to Skin the Cat
How best is God’s Word preached?
Homiletics professors usually tell students that there are three main methods or approaches to preaching: expositional, topical, and textual.
Expositional preaching focuses on the meaning of a given passage, unfolding its primary meaning for listeners. This happens in the context of sequential exposition (study and explanation) through an entire book of the Bible. The book-by-book part isn’t inherent to expositional/expository preaching, but it’s usually entailed.
Topical preaching focuses primarily on a specific topic or theme. The preacher selects a topic or theme, locates passages which address that topic or theme, and draws from them to develop an overall picture of the subject. Multiple passages or even individual verses form the basis of this instruction. Expositional preachers certainly cover topics and themes also, but they prioritize letting the text give rise to a subject rather than selecting a topic/theme, then locating passages which seem to support it.
Finally, textual preaching is generally thought to be a variation of expositional preaching. A preacher selects a more limited scope of verses/passages to cover, without the intent to cover an entire biblical book over time. Think of preaching through Matthew 1-2 or Luke 1-2 for Christmas, or Luke 24 for Easter.
Here’s one problem: halfway through these descriptions, about 30% of readers thought to themselves, “That’s not my understanding of that type of preaching.”
This confusion is a significant reason why I think these categories have perhaps outlived their usefulness. Many homiletics professors and preachers employ different definitions. This can sometimes stymie profitable discussions about preaching. At best, some new terminology may be needed.
However, my aim here isn’t to relitigate the categories; instead, I want to explore the matter of preaching doctrinally, regardless of what category people associate this with.
Doctrine Defined
Most readers will know that doctrine is simply another word for teaching. The Greek word usually translated “doctrine” in our Bibles is a variation of the verb “to teach.” (It also happens to be where we get our word “didactic.”) Doctrine is biblical teaching.
Appreciate the simplicity of this definition. Too often we make doctrine out to be lofty, obscure, esoteric, or complicated. Maybe it is lofty, if by that we mean important! But if doctrine is best understood as whatever the Bible teaches, then no Christian should be intimidated or disinterested.
The Challenge of Doctrine
Two additional considerations help explain why preaching doctrinally is a special task.
First, some doctrines are more theologically dense than others. Second, some doctrines are, in fact, obscure. They are hidden from our view for various reasons.
No one disputes that the Trinity (the heart of the doctrine of God) is more complex than probably all others. Some of this stems from the inherent limits to us knowing God as He truly is, and some from the historical, textual, and philosophical elements of Trinitarianism. Other doctrines are difficult also, though for different reasons. The doctrine of eternal punishment and hell are difficult not primarily because of philosophical issues, but the emotional impact of thinking of people spending eternity apart from God.
In short, many doctrines are complex and difficult, so this presents challenges in both instruction and understanding.
The difficulty in understanding some doctrines is part of why they remain obscure. If something is difficult to explain and understand, then preachers and teachers may avoid them or teach them poorly. Consequently, listeners won’t hear them, or when they do, they may easily misunderstand and thereby dismiss them.
This explanation has the benefit of assigning responsibility to all disciples of Jesus. Everyone has an obligation to study, learn, teach, listen, apply, and grow. If we’re to do these, we’re going to have to confront the challenges which attend doctrinal preaching.
Are there other reasons why we might be missing certain doctrines? If so, what are some solutions?
Proponents of expositional/expository preaching (which includes me) make the following argument: if you commit to a lifelong expositional ministry, working systematically through books of the Bible, you will be best positioned to address a range of biblical teachings, including some you might otherwise overlook intentionally or unintentionally.
This argument for expositional preaching is strong. It addresses both the problems of human weakness (in avoiding tough topics) and human finitude (in not having an encyclopedic knowledge of all passages and doctrines). Just work through the Scriptures systematically, faithfully, and patiently; God will bring forth what people need.
For all the strengths of this approach, there are at least three substantive weaknesses. First, it fails to account for the special prompting of the Spirit. Second, it assumes that careful selection of biblical books minimizes other prudential decisions about depth, breadth, and timing. Third, it minimizes the role of discerning shepherds.
I’m not especially worried about weakness number one. I’ve never met a committed expositional preacher who didn’t believe that the Spirit can and does sometimes prompt a preacher to go a different direction than what had been planned. On the one hand, you can always be confident in the fact that God’s Spirit has inspired all biblical texts, and thus you’re never not giving people a word from God. On the other hand, it’s possible that God’s Spirit can intervene in the study process and direct a preacher to a different text, knowing that’s what the moment calls for. Sometimes those texts contain a doctrine vital for the flock.
The second weakness requires more explanation. If I told you that some pastor was spending six months going through Ephesians, or a year in Mark, you wouldn’t bat an eye. (This, of course, assumes you’re familiar with and already value expositional preaching.) However, if I told you that a preacher was spending 63 weeks in Ezekiel, 42 weeks in Song of Solomon, or even 12 years in a book like Matthew, this would raise concerns. No one doubts the full inspiration of each of these books, but their canonical placement and content matter. Moreover, there is a question of proportionality and balance that must be applied to the Bible, which itself is a book of 66 books. That’s a lot of doctrine! You will miss a lot of it if you only camp out in one place. Prudence must accompany the use of a method, even a very beneficial method.
Finally, most who preach are pastors, which is to say, they’re shepherds. They feed the flock, but they also provide guidance, leadership, and protection. As one person memorably put it, they should smell like the sheep because they move around and among them. Shepherds will notice when sheep are biting each other. (Perhaps they’ve been bit before, too.) Shepherds will notice when a disease is running through the flock. They will notice when somehow a goat has wandered in. Therefore, it’s unavoidable for pastors to sense sometimes that a specific doctrine might be the cure to what ails God’s people.
In tandem with being open to the Spirit’s prompting, pastors can be committed to expositional preaching while also recognizing that the method itself only eventually covers the full gamut of biblical teaching.
A Case Study
I’ve long felt that the Bible is replete with teaching that never makes it way into pulpits. I know. It’s quite a claim. But all you need to do is review the table of contents of any systematic theology or Bible doctrines book, and ask yourself as you move through the chapter titles and subheadings, “When have I heard anything about that?” It’s a discouraging exercise. In truth, one could try to make too much hay of this illustration. Who truly remembers everything they’ve heard throughout the duration of their time in the church? Or half of it? Or a third? However, the fact that so many subjects remain unfamiliar to so many demonstrates, I think, the need for greater study on our part, and greater breadth of preaching and teaching in the church.
For my part, I’ve tried to tackle some of these “lost doctrines” in an occasional series by the same name. Usually when I’m between a book studies or taking a break from one, I try to preach shorter series on themes or subjects that I feel are especially pertinent to my congregation. Sometimes, however, I preach on a lost doctrine. Some of them include the ascension, common grace, and more recently, intercession. Specifically, I preached yesterday on the heavenly intercession of Christ. What does it mean to think of Christ praying for us?
“Who is to condemn? Christ Jesus is the one who died—more than that, who was raised—who is at the right hand of God, who indeed is interceding for us.” (Romans 8:34)
“The former priests were many in number, because they were prevented by death from continuing in office, but he holds his priesthood permanently, because he continues forever. Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them.” (Hebrews 7:23-25)
It was both challenging and refreshing to prepare for and deliver this message. It challenged me because the Bible doesn’t say a lot about this subject. One must not only probe the passages cited above, but they must dip into the Old Testament’s teaching about the priesthood and tabernacle to tease out clues about how we might think of Christ’s ongoing priestly work.
Therein lies another aspect of the challenge. All of us have been conditioned to focus almost entirely on Christ’s past work. Those things which he has already accomplished are the headline of our salvation presentations—and rightly so. However, what does that mean for Christ now? More than one verse teaches that he’s seated at the right hand of the Father. But what is he doing?
The doctrine of Christ’s intercession takes into view both his atoning work on the cross and the ongoing application of that to us. In some real sense, Jesus continues to bring this before the Father on behalf of the saints. God hasn’t forgotten, of course. But if there is real communication between the Father, Son, and Spirit, we should realize that there is some actual content to that communication (or communion). The Bible seems to suggest that Christ’s continues to intercede not only on behalf of those persons newly coming into the faith, but those already following Him.
Without rehashing my message or speculating about aspects of this I’m still pondering, I think it illustrates the convergence of a few things that I’m trying to get better at: (1) growing in understanding the ways of God; (2) synthesizing and expounding passages of Scripture which may not immediately be clear; and (3) identifying subjects that have sometimes escaped not only my congregation’s attention, but mine also.
Preaching on intercession was refreshing. If my findings were on target, it means that even as I struggle with imposter syndrome in my sermon preparation, perhaps feeling that Satan’s barbs disqualify me to preach, I have a Savior who continues to bring his merits before the Father, which gives me standing. Moreover, in concert with the Holy Spirit, he prays for me in ways that exceed my puny prayers.
That’s quite a doctrine!
Follow Up:
In last week’s newsletter I wrote briefly about the enduring influence of C.S. Lewis on many Christians. It makes me wonder, “Which book, essay, or quote of Lewis has been most impactful in the circles that I move in?” I heard Russell Moore say in an interview last week that The Great Divorce was probably his favorite. What’s yours? Why?
My guess would be that Mere Christianity would top the list for most. As for me, I lean toward The Abolition of Man, The Screwtape Letters, or God in the Dock. I say the former for how prescient it is, the second for how soul-searching it is, and the latter for how many different issues it addresses thoughtfully. I suppose it is cheating, since it is a book of essays.
Now, for your viewing pleasure, visit this link to watch two lectures by Walter Hooper, Lewis’s editor, given at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary in 2007. There’s an excellent anecdote around the 12-minute mark in the first lecture. In short, Lewis himself said he thought that Perelandra was the best of his books.
Currently Reading:
Leon Kass, The Beginning of Wisdom: Reading Genesis.
Jon Meacham, And There Was Light: Abraham Lincoln and the American Struggle.
Hannah Barnes, Time to Think: The Inside Story of the Collapse of the Tavistock’s Gender Service for Children.
Russell Moore, Losing Our Religion: An Altar Call for Evangelical America.
Quote of the Week:
I don’t know why exactly we gravitate to certain writers or thinkers, not just as convenient citations we drop here and there, maybe to add a bit of heft to our own flimsy pronouncements or to have the sheen of their prose shine on our lackluster sentences—but as people, people we want to have in our heads and maybe even our hearts as we think through the business of making our way in the world. I mean, of course I can think of some reasons for this—you are attracted to their ideas; you are convinced by their arguments; their mode of thought resonates with yours; they mirror back to you, in a more respectable or elegant way, your view of things; etc. In truth, I think it’s something a bit more than all of that, with reasons as varied as those that account (or fail to account) for all of our other friendships, and I hope that, at best, it is not only a matter of these voices ratifying our own thinking, but also a matter of their challenging and questioning it. In other words, I like to think that these voices we invite to the table we set in our minds sometimes snap back at us, dissolve our pretensions, and otherwise put us in our place.
L.M. Sacasas, “Embrace Your Crookedness.”
On My Mind: Baseball
My favorite baseball team, the Los Angeles Angels, has been in the news a lot. Should they should trade their best player, Shohei Ohtani, or ride out this season with him? Should they try to gain a haul in trade assets for the most unique and valuable player in baseball, or risk losing him to free agency for nothing, but with the hopes of making a playoff run? I honestly don’t know what makes most sense here. But knowing the Angels, they’ll figure out a way to mess it up!