rhettsmith.com

I followed the link over to read the supposed "15 dangers" and walked away scratching my head. You could make the same 15 statements about someone who does in fact preach expositionally. Perhaps I'm not reading them right. Also, the arrogance with which this theological camps speaks never ceases to astound me. And we wonder why people are turned off to the gospel.

Rhett, this dialogue reminded me of a satirical article I read over at relevantmagazine.com. Here's the link:
http://www.relevantmagazine.com/god_article.php?id=7142

Hey guys, I just wanted to throw in something that I noticed when reading the article by Dever.

First of all, while it may be implicit, he never actually mentions that expository preaching (verse by verse) is the only way. He says, "that God's Word [should] be regularly expounded." I can say with confidence that I don't think that if a topical sermon were preached a couple of times MacArthur, Dever, etc. would freak out - actually, he (MacArthur) has done quite a few, even recently (in regards to theological terms and Roman Catholic teaching on Sunday nights). However, with that said, any time a person presents an idea, topic, Bible verse(s), etc. and then "exposes" or "analyzes" the depths of the set idea, he or she is "expositing".

I don't think that it's so much the idea of topical sermons that disturb these men. Rather it's when a topic is presented and then explained with no real scriptural basis or contexual ground, but still the pastor uses Scripture (very little mind you), out of context, to try to back up his or her point. Mainly the "sermon" turns out to be a self-help, moralizing lecture, rather than a heralding of the glory of God - Miraslov Volf calls the former, "Psychologizing". This is what is disturbing to them, and me, and many others.

Secondly, the 15 points are not necessarily about non-expositional preaching (if by expositional preaching one means verse by verse through books of the Bible). The article specifically says that the 15 points are in refutation of "the superficial brand of preaching that is so rife in modern evangelicalism" - Psychologizing.

Now, I am not completely naive. I understand that MacArthur believes that expositional preaching (verse by verse) is the highest form of preaching that one can adopt. But I would be willing to bet that he in no way stands in opposition to a topical sermon, as long as it is firmly rooted and saturated with the Word of God as the focus of the message - which could still be considered "expositional."

And lastly - I hope that this is read with the understanding that I am in no way attacking any person, I am merely pointing out something that I have observed - the constant exclaimations that this theological camp is arrogant is maybe a bit rash. No persons of whom I am aware are more humble in practice than many of the men in "this camp" - my father included. By making such a statement, a line is drawn - an "us and them" line. This is what we are supposed to flee from, right? I know that many of "these" persons, among others, do the same thing; I am guilty of this as well. But we musn't, as much as we are able to prevent it, sling poison in reaction to poison.

I have also read and heard many statements from other "theological camps" that could be construed as arrogant, until I dug a bit deeper and attempted to actually understand from where these individuals were coming. And then things were cleared up; some still seem(ed) arrogant, others were not. I just hope that the same opportunity is given to all men and women, especially those of the household of God, our brothers and sisters in Christ. We will all spend eternity together in close communion. Why not seek union now? Even when we are reviled, we seek harmony. If a person misunderstands us and is slanderously misrepresenting us, we ought to seek peace and reconciliation through the Truth of God's Word, the lens of Holy Scripture - not "ad hominem".

Forgive me if this last section seems out of place. I just find it to be very inconsistent that the post-modern church is so hostile toward certain individuals in Evangelicalism, when one of the major cries of the "movement" is for a peaceful existence with all ideas and persons.

This is the real "lastly": when did critiquing become a bad thing? Even the Emerging Church's leaders spend a lot of time critiquing. Isn't this one of the beautiful things about America? We are able to openly discuss things through writings and public forums of other sorts. And in those forums we need to address the issues, isolate the claims, defend our positions, lay out the opposing view, and discuss, debate, and learn. This is one thing I do enjoy about your blog Rhett. You have been very even-handed in your posts, for the most part. And I appreciate that. I am learnig from your maturing process. This is a tough area for us to consistently remain humble. Thank God we have the promises of His ever-presence, guiding us through this life.

God Bless,

Austin

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)

URL:
Remember me? YesNo

Comments: