Reformed Blacks of America's Blog » Response to Q on Expository Preaching

19/06: Response to Q on Expository Preaching

Category: Church

As a Black Christian brother, I have much respect for Quincy Jones aka Q. However, as it pertains to Q’s first and second critique, it is not at all clear that he has actually understood my fundamental position. And I do not say that lightly or uncharitably. While I would like to give a more extended rebuttal to Q’s criticisms, unfortunately, brother Q has barely interacted with the critical aspects of the arguments in my article, Expository Preach: An Apostolic and Black Re-Evaluation. With such a lack of serious and careful engagement with my argumentation, I am not in much of a position to give a longer and more helpful rebuttal that is beyond just a shouting match. Nevertheless, I will try to undertake some of Q’s basic concerns and problem areas, which could hopefully deepen our discussion on some level.

4 Trouble Areas

Before I respond with a more precise rebuttal, there are four (4) major trouble areas with Q’s critiques that any reader needs to bear in mind:

First, it needs to be understood that Q does not merely disagree with me, but also with the best of Reformed and evangelical scholarship in the areas of hermeneutics, including contextualization, homiletics, and theological prolegomena for at least the last 40 years. So anyone who agrees with Q’s views, also disagrees with (Reformed) Christian orthodoxy at its best. I will say more about this later.

Secondly, there is hardly any recognition and distinction between hermeneutics and homiletics in Q’s first and second critique, which is vital to any discussion on these topics.

Thirdly, because an argument might have certain implications, those possible implications do not necessarily invalidate sound arguments. Therefore, a simple appeal to an argument’s possible implication is not an adequate basis for assuming its invalidity.

Example: God is loving and merciful. Implication may be that it does not matter how one lives. This implication does not invalidate the fact that God is loving and merciful. An appeal to this implication does not invalidate the fact that God is loving and merciful.

Fourth, The review of my article takes on a sermonic role. But sermonic assertions are not the same as well-argued and substantive critiques. It is not enough just to make blanket statements without substantiation.

Concerning Q’s 6 Problems

Now I will turn my attention to the first critique of my article on expository preaching beginning with Q’s 6 problems, which demonstrates the aforementioned points:

1. “The first problem in your treatment is that you have a narrowed definition of expository preaching.”

Where did I define expository preaching?

2. “The second problem is that you have wrongly identified the biblical paradigm of proclamation of the Word of God.”

What is “the biblical paradigm of proclamation of the Word of God?” And where have I wrongly defined it?

3. “The third problem is that you have stated that expository preaching is without divine mandate – which is a false claim.”

How is it a false claim? Where in the Bible is expository preaching commanded?

4. “The fourth problem is that you have inadvertently undermined the sufficiency of Scripture to imply that verse by verse preaching cannot be relevant to social ills, etc.”

Where exactly is the implication that I undermine the sufficiency of Scripture? Where did I say, “verse by verse preaching cannot be relevant to social ills, etc?”

5. “The fifth and second most concerning problem, as with many of your recent posts (and as I mentioned in my e-mail), is that you are critiquing expository preaching through a personal/sociological lens and not through the lens of Scripture. (And if you are using the lens of Scripture – why such scant refrences?)”

Are you suggesting that you (or anyone for that matter) must read the Scriptures without their personal/sociological lens? If so, how does one completely accomplish that?

6. “The final and most concerning problem, as with many of your recent posts (as I also mentioned in my e-mail), is that I believe you are stirring an unconscious and unnecessary antagonism against all things ‘white’ and reformed and have forgotten the ‘wall of hostility’ that has been broken in Christ and that ‘Christ is all and in all.’”

Where exactly am I “stirring an unconscious and unnecessary antagonism against all things ‘white’ and reformed” because I still stand on the shoulders of some of my White brothers and sisters? What does the ‘wall of hostility’ have to do with my article? Are you saying that Black people should not evaluate and critically interrogate anything “white” and “reformed” or the history of theology?

My Response

Ironically, just recently two White reformed (PCA) pastors said to me in a conversation unrelated to expository preaching that reformed theology is Anglo. One even said that it was too Anglo and asked me to help him see more of his Anglo interpretions of the Bible because (1) he could not see it by himself and (2) wanted to benefit from my understanding of the Scriptures as a self-conscious Black Reformed guy. Thoughts such as these may seem quite a surprise to the uninformed, but actually these thoughts are quite common among those who have rigorously thought about hermeneutical matters. But the real kicker is when Black folks do not see or get it, which is far too often. Perhaps, they need a White Reformed pastor/theologian to say reformed theology is White in order to receive it well. However, I will still try to provide a brief response to Q’s attacks.

Q said, “And though you’ve merely slanted the argument with ad hominen attacks…”

Where exactly are the ad hominen attacks?

Q said, “I will also admit that just because someone seeks to preach expositionally – doesn’t mean they will preach the text faithfully, consistently, or apply the text well.”

If this is true, doesn’t that prove my point that expository preaching like any other method is imperfect, culturally conditioned and may need to be re-evaluated, relative to the context in which it is used? Q goes on to say, “But, this does not mean that expository preaching fails at being effective for the black community…” However, it does not mean expository preaching will always be effective, which is again my point. So at the outset, it seems as though Q has already conceded his argument in support of my position. For instance, he says in the comment section of my article on RBA’s site to Alando (Asfran), “I think yours and X's critique of expository preaching (as a whole) is misdirected (its premise is off base); and that primarily because your definition of expositional preaching is incomplete. Expository preaching proper is just ‘true-to-the-text’ preaching no matter what ‘mode’ you preach it.” If “expository preaching proper is just ‘true-to-the-text’ preaching no matter what ‘mode’ you preach it," then my case is made because the mode of preaching is not my primarily concern as I have argued for in my article. The goal of preaching is what I have in view. Therefore, if “expository preaching proper is just ‘true-to-the-text’ preaching” regardless of mode, then true-to-the-text preaching IS to do what Jesus and the apostles did with the (OT) Scriptures and that is, as I said in my article "to proclaim and present Christ as resurrected" from the Scriptures as it bears on particular problems in creation, including humanity.

Q said, “Any preaching that is true preaching will be expositional.”

On what grounds will true preaching be “expositional?” Q is begging the question of expository preaching because he has not proven that the Bible teaches expository preaching as the only or best model for preaching. (I will say more about this below.) Again, Jesus and the apostles’ preaching were certainly ‘true preaching,’ but it was definitely not expositional in the modern sense of the word.

Q said, “…you have not interacted with the biblical basis of expository preaching…”

I have not interacted with the so-called biblical basis of expository preaching for (1) that was not the point of my article and (2) there is actually no “biblical basis” for expository preaching because expository preaching did not even exist when the Bible was written. Thirdly, I have never heard of any serious scholar or author on expository preaching argue for “the biblical basis of expository preaching” as if it is the only biblical method of preaching.

Q said, “I believe that you need to concentrate on the text of Scripture to prove your argument against expository preaching verse merely calling it ‘white’ in hopes that we will abandon it for fear of loosing our ‘blackness.’”

As I said in my previous comment, I do not have to prove expository preaching from the Scripture because Scripture itself does not know of anything about expository preaching. The Bible is not concerned about giving us preaching models as if it is a handbook on preaching. To suggest otherwise is to have a misunderstanding about the nature of the Bible that it does not have of itself. That would be like treating Shakespeare’s Hamlet as though it were a handbook on writing.

Q said, “So then, ‘What is expository preaching proper?’ When you consider the word expository – this term isn’t isolated to biblical and theological fields of study. Expository writing and speaking is done throughout all fields of study. Expository is merely an adjective to describe something that is serving to expound, set forth, or explain; a setting forth of meaning or intent. This is exactly what biblical expository preaching seeks to do – set forth the meaning or intent of the Word of God.”

If we go with Q’s definition of “expository preaching,” (which seems to be from Webster and not Scripture) then any form of preaching will fall under that definition if it is proclaiming what the Bible teaches. And if that’s the case, then there is nothing unique to “expository preaching” as a method or the adjective “expository” from any other way of preaching, including topical. Because one can preach a “topical” or whatever sermon and still ‘set forth the meaning or intent of the Word of God.’ The problem with Q’s definition of “expository preaching proper” is that it is entirely too broad. His definition can include almost any type of preaching. In other words, Q’s definition for “expository preaching proper” does not seem to be unique to expository preaching specifically, but rather preaching in general. Again, Q seems to be further proving my position while unfortunately, conflating hermeneutics and homiletics, particularly different deliveries. And his citation of John MacArthur is another testimony to this point. Although, we should try to “proclaim the meaning of the Scripture as God intended it,” (which I will say more about below) this does not necessarily mean that there is only one universal preaching method for ‘proclaiming the meaning of Scripture as God intended it.’

This confusion is even more compounded when Q stated, “expositors seek to get at the intended meaning in the text. Whether through a verse-by-verse systematic preaching through a book, thematic, topical, biographical, etc.” What Q does not understand is that I am not questioning whether an expositor should seek to get at the “intended meaning,” but rather how the expositor delivers the meaning he has received from the text. In other words, in dealing with the expositor or preacher, we must make a distinction between hermeneutical and homiletical concerns and the goal of each, which was the primary focus of my article.

Q said, “X begins to attack expository preaching as a whole with an improper definition of it – that it is purely verse-by-verse preaching.”

Where exactly did I define expository preaching again? And if systematic verse-by-verse preaching is not essential to what “expository preaching” is, then there is no meaningful difference between expository preaching or any other form of preaching.

Q said, “But, the tradition of expository preaching I have been given (by my white brethren – to RBA’s chagrin) is the same tradition Paul gave Timothy. This tradition is – “preach the Word” (2 Tim 4:2).”

Paul gave Timothy the tradition of expository preaching? Really? Neither Paul, nor Timothy had heard of “expository preaching,” especially according to Q’s definition because it did not even exist when they lived in the 1st century. So how in the world does “preach the Word” in 2 Tim. 4:2 mean “the tradition of expository preaching?” This is unsubstantiated and preposterous. It is clear biblically and historically that Q is reading his definition into the text of 2 Tim. 4:2. Historically speaking, this is far beyond anachronism.

Conclusion

It should be apparent that Q has been dealing with other topics and his own personal interests/agendas, and not with the arguments I presented in my article, nor the Bible properly for that matter. Anyone who says or believes that when Paul told Timothy to ‘preach the word’ he meant “expository preaching’ has severe misunderstandings about the nature of Scripture, history and hermeneutics to say the least.

Over and over again, there seems to be a strong lack of attention to and awareness of hermeneutical complexities that underlie much of this debate and my article. For instance, when Q said, “We don’t need chocolate or vanilla preaching – we need biblical preaching.” He is unaware of the fact that all biblical preaching is contextual just like all biblical interpretation is contextual. There is no such thing as a-contextual and a-cultural biblical preaching or interpretation. From this proper standpoint, therefore, one cannot properly discuss “biblical” preaching or interpretation without also discussing the historical and cultural situatedness of “biblical” preaching or interpretation, whether it is Black, Hispanic, White, etc. His title, “Expository Preaching – Black, White, or Biblical?” is another example of this false dichotomy.

We do not, according to Q, “proclaim the meaning of Scripture as God intended it,” any more than we interpret the Scripture “as God intended it,” if that means we proclaim and interpret the Scripture in a vacuum or apart from the time and place where we are situated. It is this kind of bad thinking (i.e. extreme objectivism) that plagues much of evangelicalism. In He Gave Us Stories, Richard Pratt warns us by saying, “[S]adly, evangelicals who lean toward objectivism often have the mistaken notion that they can simply read the Bible as it is. They blur the distinction between the Bible and their interpretation of the Bible…Our interpretations are inescapably affected by what we bring to the text.” (p. 35). Moises Silva in Has the Church Misread the Bible? further explains contrary to Q’s views:

Of course, we must be very careful not to read into the text present-day concerns that are not really there, but it is proper and even necessary to approach the Bible with a strong awareness of our needs…To interpret the biblical text (or any other text, for that matter) involves a contextual shift. Even when I seek merely to express what Paul meant, for example, I am constrained to do so in my situation: with English rather than Greek, with modern rather than ancient idioms, with Western nuances rather than Middle Eastern thought forms. In other words, all forms of interpretation necessarily include a measure of contextualization (emphasis mine, p. 30 in the Contemporary Interpretation volume).

John Frame in Van Til: the Theologian says it this way: “We do not know what Scripture says until we know how it relates to our world. The question of interpretation and the question of application are the same. To ask what Scripture says, or what it means, is always to ask a question about interpretation” (emphasis mine, p. 25).

At the end of the day, Q’s criticism of my views on expository preaching do not undermine my arguments at all because of (1) the four trouble areas I mentioned above that are further delineated in the “My Response” section, (2) he did not prove that expository preaching is actually taught anywhere in the Bible and (3) although, I am fine with expository preaching as a possible preaching method, I do not really care about whether preaching is expository, topical or whatever. Those are not the categories that I am constrained by in terms of homiletics. What I do care about is proclaiming the resurrected Christ from the Scriptures as that bears on particular problems in creation, including humanity because that is actually what the Bible cares about and does, not Q’s so-called definition or defense of a particular form of preaching - expository preaching.

Co-Founder Xavier Pickett

Note: See my comment to Q below as well.

Comments

qdog wrote:

Hey X,

Interesting response...

Particularly your initial statements that didn't take into account (as I even said publicly here and on my blog) that my response was not yet complete and that I would substantiate all of my statements in phases. (I don't fault you for responding before I was done though - I would have too. But, I was surprised by the dismissive and belittling tone or your comments regarding my arguments as having "barely interacted with your critical arguments" and have "such a lack of serious and careful engagement with my argumentation" when - again - they were not complete. However, they have been excused.)

Though I am in the midst of preparing for a cross country move in 3 weeks - I will attempt to quickly combine my response that I was preparing and my response to the above.

I will say upfront that you have provided a few smoke screens that need to be fanned away:

1) The initial unfair comments that attempt to insult the intelligence of my argument without taking into consideration that my argument was not complete. (For which I am not personally offended mind you.)

2) The four problem areas divert from the real issue that your "Black...Re-evaluation" was emphasizing and I was addressing in the second phase of my critique (which I say more about below).

3) You have either cleverly restated or newly postulated the point of your article on Expository Preaching which also diverts from my plain arguments against your basic problem with expository preaching.

For example, in your response above, you say:

"...the mode of preaching is not my primarily concern as I have argued for in my article. The goal of preaching is what I have in view."

You also say:

"I am fine with expository preaching as a possible preaching method, I do not really care about whether preaching is expository, topical or whatever."

But, if the "mode" of preaching was not your focus in your last article and the "goal" of preaching was actually your main concern - then why does your article begin and end with dismissing expository preaching as it relates to Black folk? The very fact that you DO have a problem with expository preaching is alluded to in very title of your article.

And, if a “mode” of preaching not being chocolate enough was not your point, then why say this:

"most Black expositors are succumbing to the same inherent problems of expository preaching just like their White counterparts probably because [expository preaching] was primarily invented for their (White) context."

And, if a “mode” of preaching not being chocolate enough was not your point, then why conclude your article this way:

"Contrary to most Black Reformed people, the Black church does not need more Black preachers who are socialized to merely preach expositionally like their White counterparts. Historically and presently, the Black church has done an excellent job in cultivating brilliant Black preachers. So why in the world would we rather conform to Western European male homiletics and trade in one of our significant gifts to the church, if it truly manifests the beauty and redemption of Christ to his church? [...] Therefore, what the church could use is a type of preaching that is connected to Black church traditions and the broader church. It is preaching that is more theologically indigenous, dialogic in nature and prophetic in its ethos. In other words, what the church could use is chocolate milk preaching!"

Your conclusion gives you away...as anyone who disagreed with you will attest. If Christ exalting preaching was your concern - then they would have whole heartedly agreed with you.

If the "goal" of "preaching Christ resurrected" was your primary focus and you don't have a problem with expository preaching (as a white homiletic adopted by black folk) - then what is the problem with expository preaching if it exalts Christ? And what then is even the point of your initial article but for shock value?

Bro, let's get past the smoke screens and deal plainly with the overarching theme of your last article - and if you want to make Christological preaching the focus and to "deepen" the discussion - then you may want to revise your article.

Again, I was not done with my initial responses; but, I will finish them in due time...

I do appreciate the discussion (which I can see taking some time).

Jude 2,

Q

19/06 22:33:40

qdog wrote:

To clarify my above post - this is not my "combined response" as mentioned I would prepare quickly. These are just initial thoughts to get to the heart of the matter.

Q

19/06 22:39:33

wwdunc wrote:

Xavier,

I think you’ve given a very well-reasoned response to Qs critiques that has also been very instructive to read. I’ve also finally learned a term to describe a problem that I’ve noticed not infrequently in the Reformed blogosphere: “extreme objectivism.” As you quote Richard Pratt saying: “They blur the distinction between the Bible and their interpretation of the Bible…”, an interpretation which is “affected by what [they] bring to the text.”

I’ve seen this extreme objectivism not just in debates over Bible interpretations, but in discussions about almost everything! The attitude seems to be: “My opinion is biblical, and if you disagree with me at all, then you are obviously not thinking biblically” (even if it’s not so obvious that their opinion is biblical or that you’re opinion was particularly unbiblical). Such “bad thinking” virtually shuts down all real discussion. And, that’s what we have on far too many Reformed blogs: no discussions, just lock-step agreement from the “regulars” or arguing with anyone who disagrees in any way.

Here’s my problem with this kind of thinking, when it comes to Black people who, supposedly, want to see spiritual and theological reform in the “Black Church”: If Black Reformed people “blur the distinction between the Bible and their interpretation of the Bible”, and it turns out their interpretation was no more than a parroting of the interpretation of some white theologian or author whose own interpretation was “affected by what [he brought] to the text”, then all we’re doing as Black Reformed Christians is just buying into a “white” way of thinking and confusing that with being biblical. In other words, it becomes just another form of Black self-hatred—rejecting everything Black. And, that attitude just won’t work in the Black community! We will never impact the Black community with the Doctrines of Grace, giving off the scent of white superiority.

I, personally, think this is a great danger and temptation for Black evangelicals of all types. If we’re not careful, the books we read (by white authors) and the classes we take (under white professors) and the preaching we hear (from white pastors) will cause us to lose our ability to minister effectively to our own people who, I admit, desperately need biblical preaching and teaching.

Wyeth Duncan

20/06 00:32:33

TmanKillah(same) wrote:

Mr. Duncan
You identified a “white way of thinking”; my I ask, what is a “black” way of thinking? What does it look like, sound like etc? How is it distinct from “white way of thinking” exactly?

20/06 01:56:44

anonymous wrote:

i've been following this discussion for a while now, and i hope to weigh in as time (and discipline) allows. But for now, i simply have one request: Xavier, could you please provide your definition of "expositional preaching"? Since you stated in your response to Q (albeit in the form of a rhetorical question) that you never defined the term in your original post, i think it would be very helpful if you did so.

-christopher

20/06 16:33:23

Wyeth Duncan wrote:

TmanKillah,

A "black way of thinking" is how I think as a black, male descendent of black slaves, reared by black people, having experienced all my life (nearly 44 years, and counting) as a black man growing up, going to school, getting married, rearing children, working and living in the United States of America.

In other words, I cannot NOT think like a black man (Just like a white man or hispanic man or Asian man cannot avoid thinking like what they are).

Someone will probably want to quote Galatians 3:28. Note, however: Being "in Christ Jesus" doesn't change the fact that these people to whom Paul wrote were Jew, Gentile, slave, free, male or female. The distinctions remained; it was their status before God that was made the same. No one had an advantage or disadvantage in the matter of salvation, but they were still what they were.

In the same way, although I've been saved about 27 years, salvation didn't change my background, my previous experiences, my family heritage--all those things that God has used to make me uniquely who I am in him.

So, do you see that a "black" way of thinking, or a "white" way or a "hispanic" way is self-evident? I'm saying we can't escape who we are as human beings living in this world. Indeed, it's a sorry sight when black people try to run away from who they are, adopting racist attitudes toward themselves.

Does that answer your question?

20/06 18:23:31

jesse gistand wrote:

Anonymous wrote;

i've been following this discussion for a while now, and i hope to weigh in as time (and discipline) allows. But for now, i simply have one request: Xavier, could you please provide your definition of "expositional preaching"? Since you stated in your response to Q (albeit in the form of a rhetorical question) that you never defined the term in your original post, i think it would be very helpful if you did so.

-christopher
HE DID! a little more than half way down.
Q said, “So then, ‘What is expository preaching proper?’ When you consider the word expository – this term isn’t isolated to biblical and theological fields of study. Expository writing and speaking is done throughout all fields of study. Expository is merely an adjective to describe something that is serving to expound, set forth, or explain; a setting forth of meaning or intent. This is exactly what biblical expository preaching seeks to do – set forth the meaning or intent of the Word of God.”

My comments now.

And this is your classic definition.
Though in it's fuller explanation there are other objectives considered.
However I think that the real issue, is indeed, both homiletic and application.

As I listen to X and Q, and I am certainly looking for Q's extended development as He promised.

It still remains true for one who is on the outide of the debate, nevertheless extremely interested
in the outcome of this discussion but more-so , just as concerned about a more effective and relevant approach to reaching the black community with the gospel of an Exalted Christ, that will transform.

Yet keenly aware of the obstacles X has raised reformed preaching.
" Extreme objectifying"

I'ts funny, because I have both whites and blacks in my Church, and there is certainly a difference in thinking.

I can quickly discern when the one cannot grasp a point, relavent to the other, because of a lack of experience. This is not a bad thing. It is what it is and it is the challenge of black preachers to understand how to reach in the context of homiletics and application their audience.

This is really what I believe X is saying, while addressing the limitations of expository preaching, as exemplified often in the black reformed Churches,as adopted by Historically white theologians.

I would exhort both Q and X to continue as they have to remain diplomatic and professional as they further develop their arguments.

We are benefiting.

God be with you both!

PJesse

20/06 19:04:26

TmanKillah(same) wrote:

Thank you for your response Duncan. I appreciate that. But I was looking for what you meant theologically speaking. Or how does a black man “do” theology and his live out the Christian experience the “Black” way? And some of what I’m trying to say is along the lines of; how does theology take on blackness? It’s kind of hard for me to explain what I’m getting at. Sorry about that. I mean do we lose out “blackness” because we learn from non blacks? Or if I have been theologically convinced and adopt my belief system say from my White neighbor, am I a sell out in some way? Is there a color to truth?

Thanks

20/06 19:21:45

TmanKillah(same) wrote:

Duncan
Also, I agree with your response.

20/06 19:26:56

TmanKillah(same) wrote:

Jesse,
I think that was Q's definition of Expository preaching.

20/06 19:29:59

RBAFounderX wrote:

Q,

I am glad that you are not personally offended because that was not my intention. I wanted to challenge you “fiercely” to use your words, just as much as you wanted to challenge my position “fiercely.” It is unfortunate that you took my response to you as being belittling because I said you “barely interacted with the critical aspects of the arguments in my article” and there was a “lack of serious and careful engagement with my argumentation.” But if your critique considerably failed to deal with my article on its own terms, then it is what it is.

I said in the comment section of my initial article on RBA’s site and your blog, "Although, I’m traveling, I thought you should know that I am going to try to provide a response to your responses/posts to my article. All I ask is that you consciously and genuinely interact with my arguments and not just make unsubstantiated assertions like the 7 problems you have already delineated. Otherwise, our discussion will not go anywhere, if you do not deal with my arguments." Furthermore, I did not have to wait until you finished all your phases in responding because the basis of what you’ve already said in your first two critiques were flawed and unsubstantiated from the outset. So everything else you had planned (and are going) to say will further compound your fundamental misunderstandings and misrepresentations. Therefore, the problem is not the incompletion of your critiques, but its lack of significant understanding and interaction with my arguments no matter how much is written as a rebuttal.

As far as the “smoke screen” argument, I have no idea what you are referring to because I believe my point is clear and most people who commented seem to have picked up on some of my basic concerns. So we must differentiate between your alleged smoke screen and the proper understanding of my argument/article.

Moreover, “christological” or “Christ exalting” preaching has always been the focus of my article. I am just arguing for a *different type* of “christological” preaching – chocolate milk preaching that includes socio-Christotelic dimensions (again, as I stated in my article and response).

If the way/mode we accomplish the goal of preaching the resurrected Christ allowed for more serious engagement with the evils in creation, then I wouldn't have *as much* of a problem with it. One of the main problems with expository preaching currently is that it tends not to deal with the evils in creation, especially those that affect many Black folks (e.g. HIV/AIDS, unequal justice system, etc) under the veneer of Christ/gospel-centered preaching. I don't understand how can a (Black) preacher say that he is preaching the gospel in an expository mode and not deal with the sins in the world. So quite frankly, we need to be honest with ourselves and admit that expository preaching as a method may not always be the best or most appropriate form of preaching for Black folks. This is not because Black folks are not smart enough as if the expository preaching method is universally superior and perfect, but because of the inadequacies of the (any) method. And we, as Black reformed folks, need to be comfortable with that contrary to what our White reformed brethren may say/write.

20/06 21:10:14

RBAFounderX wrote:

Wyeth,

Brother, you are on it!! I hope more people will actually read and think about what you've shared with us.

20/06 21:13:23

RBAFounderX wrote:

Anonymous/Christopher,

How will my definition of "expository preaching" be helpful when I've already provided my definition of preaching in general in my article and response to Q?

20/06 21:16:28

Paul wrote:

Wyeth,

Thank you for your helpful explanation of a "black way of thinking". I think most of your post is spot on, but you lose me in your last paragraph. You write:

"So, do you see that a 'black' way of thinking, or a 'white' way or a 'hispanic' way is self-evident? I'm saying we can't escape who we are as human beings living in this world. Indeed, it's a sorry sight when black people try to run away from who they are, adopting racist attitudes toward themselves."

With respect, the point you are trying to make here is not "self-evident", at least it's not to me (and I suspect it isn't to Tman or Q either). I would ask Tman to forgive me for presuming to clarify his question, but I don't think he was asking you how you as a black individual think, but, more generally, how those who have black skin think. Certainly no one would deny that you as a black man always have and always will think as a black man; that is not the issue as far as I can tell. If I'm understanding Tman's question correctly he's asking you if we can/ought to say that all black people in general should think a certain way, or at least they will if they are authentically black.

The final paragraph of your post makes me wonder if you might be presuming that your way of thinking as a black man is the standard for how all authentically black people should think. How do we determine when someone with black skin has "run away" from who he/she is and thus has adopted a "racist" attitude toward him/herself? Doesn't that judgment -- and it is a judgment -- presume a standard of some sort, a measure by which we determine how those who are authentically black ought to think? What, then, is this standard? When one black person disagrees with another black person, particularly on matters of race, how do we determine which individual has "run away from who they are"? How do we determine when someone who has black skin isn't thinking in an authentically "black" way? Who gets to make that determination? And here's the kicker, who died and left that person in charge?

Respectfully,
Paul

21/06 11:05:02

Sheviewer wrote:

Has anyone yet established where expositional preaching is mandated in Scripture? If so, I missed it in the midst of the verbaige. Could someone please explain this? Thanks.

21/06 14:01:33

Wyeth Duncan wrote:

Paul, you are reading WAY too much into what I wrote. I meant nothing more than what I wrote. Everyone is unique, with unique life experiences, etc. Nevertheless, being black in America, generally speaking, gives you certain shared experiences with other black people. In that sense, most American blacks understand where other American blacks are “coming from”. This doesn’t negate diversity of opinions among black people about any variety of subjects.

About the idea of running away from who you are: Are you familiar with the history of those blacks who, in the 19th and early 20th centuries, “passed” as white? Because of the sexual intermingling of white southerners and their slaves, some “black” people were quite fair-skinned, even to the point of looking “white” (think of Walter White, the former director of the NAACP, prior to Roy Wilkins). Some of these “white-looking” black people, in order to avoid the American stigma of being black (and being black still caries a stigma), basically turned their backs on their race and “became” white. They literally ran away from who they were by heritage.

Or, take, for example, those Christian blacks who, after slavery, moved North and organized churches in which they attempted to put behind them every remnant of their slave past. The church buildings of these believers were a far cry from the old country churches of their southern past. They were build of stone and brick, had carpet down the center aisle, pipe organs, robed choirs and clergy, sang formal hymns and anthems, squelched any signs of “emotionalism” and, basically, became as “white” as possible in the manner and style of their worship (I won't say they became more biblical, however. Their pastors, who tended to be more educated than their southern counterparts, if they went to seminary at all, often attended schools which were coming under the influence of the German higher critics and denying the authority of Scripture.) They were ashamed of who they were, and were running away from their race in a pitiable attempt to gain the approval and acceptance of white society. The irony is, white society didn’t become any more inclined to accept blacks. Even with our new-found sophistication, we were still regarded as just a bunch of “n-----s”.

Here's my point: I think that, even today, THERE IS A TEMPTATION FOR BLACK EVANGELICALS TO FALL INTO THIS SAME KIND OF SORRY TRAP. Subconsciously, we’re trying to win the acceptance and approval of “the majority culture”. Therefore, in our manner and style of “doing church”, we (again, subconsciously) run away from anything that could be labeled as “black”. However, at the end of the day, we’re still in the same place: not fully accepted by the very people we were trying to impress. But, now, we’re also rendered unable to reach “our own people” because we’ve lost the ability to communicate with “our own”.

What I’m pleading for is that we black, Reformed and evangelical Christians don’t lose our ability to communicate and relate, spiritually and theologically, with our own “kinsmen in the flesh”.

21/06 14:10:24

Wyeth Duncan wrote:

I ran out of space!

So, on to Tman’s question:

“How does a black man ‘do’ theology and his live out the Christian experience the ‘Black’ way? And some of what I’m trying to say is along the lines of; how does theology take on blackness? Do we lose [our] ‘blackness’ because we learn from non blacks? Or if I have been theologically convinced and adopt my belief system say from my White neighbor, am I a sell out in some way? Is there a color to truth?”

The answer is, “No”. We do not lose our blackness because we learn from non-blacks. We are not sell-outs because we’re won over in our theological convictions by white people. There is no color to truth.

But, different cultures/races have different ways of communicating. I don’t know what your exposure to the traditional “Black Church” is but, suffice it to say, the average traditional black church is quite different from the average Reformed church (to say the least!). We’re especially different in our modes of communication. By what means do we communicate? We communicate in our manner of preaching, in our way of worshipping, and in our style of singing (and, oftimes, in what we sing).

I know, from reading and listening to Reformed believers, the way the Black Church “does” church is considered wrong. Period. I’ve not heard anyone say those words but, if you know the Black Church, you know that’s what the average Reformed Christian would say, if they were asked to evaluate the average traditional black church. The Black Church’s manner of preaching is all wrong, its way of worshipping is intolerable, and its style of singing (and choice of songs) is considered unworthy. You must admit, us Reformed-minded people are opinionated, if nothing else. I’ve heard and read our opinions which communicate those exact things. The remarks weren’t, necessarily, being directed at the Black Church but, by “Reformed” standards, that’s where the Black Church would stand.

I’m saying, we can’t buy into that. The Reformed community has its theology all mixed up with white/Western European culture, and most people don’t bother to think where one stops and the other takes over. I’m saying, black Reformed, evangelical Christians need to learn how to “eat the fish and spit out the bones”—LEARN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GOOD THEOLOGY AND WHITE CULTURAL OPINION. Because, if we swallow the “bones” of white cultural opinion, we’ll end up despising our own culture. And, we’ll be rendered ineffective in our ministry to the black community, because (and I’m just talking about what I know about Black Church culture) most black people are not going to let you shove white culture down their throat.

I hope, Paul and Tman, I’ve at least partially answered your questions. These are issues I’ve been trying to sort out for the past 9 years.

Here’s what I do know: I came to faith in Christ while still in the Black Church. My earliest instruction in who Jesus is was given by old black people. There weren’t any Reformed folks in my neighborhood, knocking on our doors, teaching us the gospel, caring about our souls! It was black people who cared. They didn’t know anything about the term “Doctrines of Grace”, didn’t know a Calvinist from an Arminian, couldn’t read Greek or Hebrew (and some of the old folks did the best they could with English), and the only TULIP they knew about was a flower. Most of these folks were converted (“’fessed religion”) on the “mourner’s bench”. They loved to sing those old gospel songs published by “Martin & Morris”, some of them would even “get happy” in church. According to some of my white Reformed brethren (based on what they write and talk about), their theology was deficient and their worship was crude, with the implication that their salvation was questionable.

And, if some of my black brethren aren’t careful, you’ll begin to think the same thing. And THAT attitude is what I think is unacceptable.

Thanks, Tman and Paul, for your questions. If you still need clarification, please let me know.

21/06 14:12:18

TmanKillah(same) wrote:

Good words Paul, That’s it…..from a different approach….

21/06 14:15:21

Gentry wrote:

Paul,

Thanks for that. You are echoing concerns I have voiced time and again. Ultimately it must be Christ's standard, and He has made His determinations known, and they are to be obeyed regardless of context or skin tone. The Christian Life Standard is the same for all communities because it comes from God Himself. We will all live it out in different ways, because our circumstances differ, our sin issues differ, our responses differ, and our cultural concerns differ. However, the fundamental standards that guide what our reactions and responses are SUPPOSED to be are the SAME. We fail in different ways, we succeed in different ways (by grace), but the goals OUGHT to be the same for all, because they are NOT OUR GOALS, they are Gods. Personally, what I see often discussed here is never about 'understanding' the truth, it's about 'applying' it. The truth, as it must be understood, cannot be different for one set of people than another, if it is indeed the truth.

Case in point: X has been passionate, and rightly so, about wanting to hear more about HIV/AIDS, and the unjust prison system in the preaching in black churches, and not to put words in his mouth, but this passion stems from the Truth that we as Christians ought to "Love our Neighbors as ourselves" - that is the biblical truth. The carrying out of that truth in the black community must speak specifically to that community - that means dealing with the sin issues and injustices that are currently effecting that community. (Not rocket science, right?) X's application of the universal truth does not effect the truth itself, but applies it to a specific situation. I a white community, there would likely be different issues to focus on, like homelessness or poverty, homosexuality, etc... but these differences in focus do not change the theological nature of the underlying truth and command to love your neighbor.

As to the issue at hand, I don't think that any 'style' of preaching is more or less 'biblical' than others. Preachers should be versed in several styles to keep things fresh for their congregation. We have no examples of 'sermons' (the way we are discussing them here) in scripture other than Christ's sermon on the mount. That sermon was both 'expositional' AND 'topical'. And we can do likewise. I can preach expositionally on a topic as easily as I can preach a topic verse by verse. I can preach the entire bible in one sermon, or I can preach on one verse for 2 months. The questions are, of course, what is wise and what is beneficial for my people. NOT my black people, or my WHITE people - but the people sitting before me in the pews in Christ's Church.

Someone above posted that they have people of both cultures in the pews, and that some things are effective for the black folk, and others for the white folk - that's perfectly fine and expected, since experience will dictate how we RECEIVE the truth, but it does not change the truth itself. I imagine (and hope) that he knows his people well enough that he is able to parallel those things that only the black folk 'get' with other things that the white folk 'get' - see, because it is our job to communicate the Truth in a way that ALL our people will GET - and that communication will be different, and the focus will be different, but the truth remains the SAME.

blessings,
Greg Gentry

PS - X, miss you brother.

21/06 14:30:38

Gentry wrote:

Wyeth,
I appreciate your last post. That was helpful. I think we all need to know the difference between good theology and western European opinion. That too is a truth that goes beyond color and just as necessary to be realized and taught in white churches as black.

We also need to know where to draw the line between doctrine and preference. Music in worship is doctrinal - it must be there. What kind of music is a question of preference. Biblical preaching is a doctrinal issue - it too must be there or there is no church. The style of preaching is again a question of preference. Lecture verses dialogical style of preaching is also a question of preference (both of which can be done topically and expositionally).

I agree that we must be careful not to assume that if other Christians worship differently than we do that they are necessarily wrong or doctrinally unsound for doing so - and that goes in both directions. That being said, we ought to be engaging one another as brothers to be sure what we <i>are</> doing is doctrinally sound, and neither legalistic nor lawless.

blessings,
Greg

21/06 14:44:30

TmanKillah(same) wrote:

I understand Duncan, I agree and yes, I know all about the black church experience and love it and still do. The singing, music, emotion, attitudes, and etc were all good. However the preaching lacked, big time!
Do you think the case for Expository preaching is of “white opinion”?
Good words Duncan.

21/06 16:18:41

Wyeth Duncan wrote:

Thanks, Tman, for your words.

You ask, is expository preaching of "white opinion"? Not necessarily.

Again, I think this is a matter of learning to "eat the fish and spit out the bones." The expository method can be useful for dissecting the text to extract meaning. However, within the framework of the black community, I don't see that it's necessary to throw out everything pertaining to style or manner of delivery, things which are culturally conditioned, when one preaches expositorily.

I'm reminded of a black pastor I know who, for the past 30 years at his church, preaches through books of the Bible, using the verse-by-verse method (complete with an alliterative, 3-point outline), but his preaching is all the way "black". He hollers, shouts, sweats, preaches across the platform and down the aisle. He gets "worked up" and the people get "worked up", too! "Black" preaching! But, he still sticks to the text, teaches the Bible, explains his passage, all without sacrificing one iota of the country preacher within.

And, of course, I'm not ruling out other methods of sermon construction. I've certainly heard (live and on recording) sermons that were sound and biblical, that benefitted me greatly, and were not expository. A.W. Tozer comes to mind.

21/06 17:41:02

TmanKillah(same) wrote:

Before we all begin on a tangent, understand what is being compromised ambiguously; the notion of a Social-centric theme from the pulpit supplanting a Gospel-centric theme. Being that the Expository preaching objective is the concentration of the text primarily, the ills that plague Black folk cannot take center stage in that system of preaching. The bible is the center stage evidently. Any idea that the Gospel should reach to the Social arena (Aids, incarceration of Blacks, etc.) demonstrates a warped view of the Gospel and its intent. Paul told Timothy to “preach the Word”! When you turn the pulpit into a megaphone for your “felt needs” you have become a detriment to yourself and to God’s children. That is the CROMPROMISE! Any shift from that end; “preach the Word,” is satanic.
2 Timothy 4:3-4 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, 4 and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths.
Again, this seems so close to Black Liberation Theology were the focus was on the condition of Black folk.

X’s attack on Expository preaching is secondary (not to kick dirt on Q’s aim) to the extinguishing of the message expounded.
1 Timothy 4:13-16 13 Until I come, give attention to the public reading of Scripture, to exhortation and teaching. 14 Do not neglect the spiritual gift within you, which was bestowed on you through prophetic utterance with the laying on of hands by the presbytery. 15 Take pains with these things; be absorbed in them, so that your progress will be evident to all. 16 Pay close attention to yourself and to your teaching; persevere in these things, for as you do this you will ensure salvation both for yourself and for those who hear you.
X, please rethink your position.

21/06 18:21:40

TmanKillah(same) wrote:

I hear you Duncan and it’s hard to argue against that if that’s completely true. (LOL) I wonder when the “show” is over if the people were really confronted with the message and its content. I would tripp out to see a church where “the show” is (and yes the entertainment value reigns supreme LOL who’s really digesting anything when other sub-sideshows is occurring at the same time) being a well educated body of believers from their time spent on Sunday morning.

21/06 18:36:21

Paul wrote:

Dear Wyeth, Tman, and Greg,

I want to thank you gentlemen for your thoughtful, substantive interaction on these matters. What a pleasure to interact with serious and thoughtful Christian brothers who take serious and thoughtful questions seriously! Thank you all for not being dismissive.

Wyeth, a particular word of thanks to you for your very helpful explanation above. Please forgive me for reading too much into your comments; I now understand you were neither buying into an oppressive (and in my mind, altogether goofy) kind of groupthink, nor were you suggesting that there is color to truth. I now see that your primary concern -- and please correct me if I'm still getting it wrong -- is with matters of application and communication. You have a practical concern that black Reformed believers be able to speak biblical truth effectively to a black context and think that will be lost if black believers address black congregations as if they were addressing white congregations, thereby presuming that the social contexts are precisely the same, when they more often than not aren't. Very helpful clarification. Thank you again.

If you will indulge me bit longer, though, do you perhaps see why my (and Tman's) questions were not entirely unjustified and perhaps might still be relevant, at least in a certain sense? In an earlier post you wrote:

"If Black Reformed people 'blur the distinction between the Bible and their interpretation of the Bible', and it turns out their interpretation was no more than a parroting of the interpretation of some white theologian or author whose own interpretation was 'affected by what [he brought] to the text', then all we’re doing as Black Reformed Christians is just buying into a 'white' way of thinking and confusing that with being biblical. In other words, it becomes just another form of Black self-hatred—rejecting everything Black. And, that attitude just won’t work in the Black community!"

I'm still not exactly sure what to make of this, so here are my (hopefully relevant) questions:

1. In your thinking about these matters, are interpretation and application inextricably bound, such that a different application of a text necessarily suggests a different interpretation of the text? In other words, can we separate the interpretation and understanding of biblical truth from the communication and application of biblical truth? I think we can but I suspect you might think we can't, which would help explain (at least in my mind) why you are opposed to "extreme objectivism" on the one hand and concerned that black Christians not buy into "a 'white' way of thinking" on the other. If I'm way off here, please forgive me.

2. If truth indeed has no color, and if we can in fact truly know what the Bible teaches, then why characterize interpretations of Scripture (which for the purposes of this question I'm assuming can be separated from applications of Scripture) as being "white" or "black"? Wouldn't it be better to characterize interpretations of Scripture as being "true" or "false" (or perhaps, more accurately, "more true" or "less false", since no created being can understand the text in a flawless and comprehensive fashion)? I understand that you are opposed to "extreme objectivism". I am too. Yes, our understanding of the text is affected by what we bring to the text, but does that mean that we can't understand the truth of the text more or less "objectively"? I understand that we could start talking past one another very quickly at this point, but isn't the problem with "extreme objectivism" the adjective "extreme" and not the idea that we can have at least some knowledge that corresponds with the way reality objectively is?

I hope those questions make sense. Please forgive me if they don't.

Thanks again, Gentlemen.

Respectfully,
Paul

22/06 14:23:57

Jesse Gistand wrote:

The latest conversation by all you brothers is good. Very good.

X is indeed achieving the primary goal of bringing to light the challenges of this matter of relavent preaching, in general and specifically to the black community!

Without sounding antagonistic, Gentry, TMan, Wyeth, Sheviewer; His grace abounding to all of you,

When X address the radical need to have the social issues, that plague the black community addressed, He is not necessarily advocating a social gospel! This is to TMan!

This leap, is what X warned about in the preface of His retort, " That a proposition which might lend itself to the possibility of a negaitve outcome, does not invaldiate that proposition!
This is imoprtant, because this very phobia is what keep men from addressng these issues passionately, for fear of sounding like a liberal socialist.

THE PROBLEM is , that you neglect a deeply needed problem, in the Hearts of Mom's and Dads in the hood, who have children and family affected by these evils!!!!!!

I am the Pastor with the multi- ethnic congregation. 300men and women and growing, grace-bible.com

And you are welcome to listen to my expository, topical, passionate, Christ exalting, issue oriented, preaching.

Which does sometimes, leave my non-blacks, on the sideline, for a moment, to address the issues, that they are not challenged with.
But because they love Christ, their brethren, all of them, black,asian, Philipino, Indian, Mexican, etc, and a cross section of it all, they are heartily in agreement with their pastor addressing those issues.

Never once leaving the centrality of Christ and Him Crucified.

Since Christ crucified, is both the impetus for action, and the power to change.

But this I will say! Listen carefully to our Lords preaching; and you will see while He pointed all men to Himself, He consistently pointed to the neglected issues of the day! Consisently!

This is why the establishment hated Him! Because He glorified, the Samaritan, the Publican, the Leper, the harlot, etc; social outcasts, who responded by grace, to the second commandment, which should flow from the first; condemning the Pharisees, who simply sat around and ate, and talked theology!
Luke 14:1,24

He gave them a view of God, which they utterly neglected.

This tension, of believing, and responding, must never go away!

We may be found wanting in the reformed community on this level, but it should never be pushed under the rug!

The social plight should never supplant the pure message of the gospel either!

22/06 14:34:38

Wyeth Duncan wrote:

Paul,

You’ll remember, I was making a point based on the following paragraph, which is taken from Xavier’s original post:

“We do not, according to Q, ‘proclaim the meaning of Scripture as God intended it,’ any more than we interpret the Scripture ‘as God intended it,’ if that means we proclaim and interpret the Scripture in a vacuum or apart from the time and place where we are situated. It is this kind of bad thinking (i.e. extreme objectivism) that plagues much of evangelicalism. In He Gave Us Stories, Richard Pratt warns us by saying, ‘[S]adly, evangelicals who lean toward objectivism often have the mistaken notion that they can simply read the Bible as it is. They blur the distinction between the Bible and their interpretation of the Bible…Our interpretations are inescapably affected by what we bring to the text.’ (p. 35).”

So, considering your question: “Can we separate the interpretation and understanding of biblical truth from the communication and application of biblical truth?” I’d like to think we can but, knowing how wide the gulf is between white evangelicals and the traditional Black Church or between cessationists and continuationists or between dispensationalists and covenantalists, and so forth, I just don’t think it is always possible 100% of the time. Ideally, yes. Practically speaking, no.

I think (and I emphasize “think”, because I have to think more about this, but this is what comes to mind at the moment) our racial, cultural/ethnic, denominational, theological biases are so deeply embedded that, though we should make it our aim to understand the truth of the text of Scripture objectively, sometimes, on certain issues (which vary from one person, group, denomination, etc. to another), our particular biases just seep through, in spite of our efforts to be objective.

But, I do understand why you had these concerns and questions. Again, I hope this clarification helps.

22/06 15:40:57

TmanKillah(same) wrote:

Take a careful look at this quote by Carl F. Ellis, Jr

Second, it is widely known that a major influence on John Calvin was an obscure African
theologian named Augustine of Hippo. Without Augustine’s African theological contribution,
the Protestant Reformation in Europe would have been a mere “flash in the pan.” Oops, we’re
getting into Afro-centric thinking and we must be careful lest we transgress.
Third, we have all heard the story of how on October 29, 1517, Martin Luther tacked his
“95 thesis” on the door of All Saints Church in Wittenberg, Germany. Most historians
acknowledge this as the spark, which ignited the Protestant Reformation. While this is true, few
acknowledge that a major driving force behind the Reformation was German nationalism. In
those days, what is now Germany was part of the “Holy Roman Empire.” Thus the German
church was under Roman control. The time-honored assumption was, “You cannot be a
culturally German and Christian. To be a Christian you must be culturally Roman.” When
Luther translated the Bible into German and advocated German control of the German church, he
liberated his people from Roman-centric marginalization. For the first time they were free to be
German Christians. Would this be considered “German-centrism?” Call it what you will,
without this creative cultural force unleashed by Luther’s German Christian ideas, the
Reformation would have been crushed by the Roman Church into historic obscurity.

Read the entire article here http://www.reformedblacksof...
Now. Do you see what I see? Do you not see what’s wrong with this particular quote?

22/06 16:18:37

Emmanuel Viray wrote:

I work in a neighborhood that has gang warfare going on- a kid from one neighborhood can be killed for being in another section of the neighborhood. If I preach a sermon calling gang members to stop killing each other in a white suburban church, it would be extremely irrelevant. However, if I am preaching the same sermon in front of kids who are gang members, then it would be very relevant. The difference in experiences sets the two audiences apart.

However, the call to love one's neighbor, to not seek his harm is relevant to everyone. Effective application of universal principles are different, depending on experiences.

23/06 04:49:57

Paul wrote:

Thank you for your clarification, Wyeth. I do appreciate your thoughtful response. Please understand that I'm asking these questions because I recognize that I, too, have a lot more thinking to do on these matters and I'm finding this interaction to be very helpful.

Generally speaking, I am concerned that we contemporary evangelical types -- be we black, white, Reformed, Arminian, or whatever -- are accommodating methodological assumptions that are undermining our ability to preach and teach biblical truth faithfully. More specifically, I am concerned that we are way too enamored with the postmodern notion that truth is a social construction, and thus we are way too eager to distance ourselves from the idea that we can know and communicate biblical truth in a more or less objective, transcultural fashion.

As far as I can tell, if we don't maintain that interpretation and understanding of biblical truth must precede our communication and application of that truth -- if we say, in other words, that social context changes not just the particular way the truth finds its relevance but the truth itself -- then we must not only reject the notion of objective, transcultural truth, but we must also conclude that there in fact is color to truth (provided that we assume, wrongly I would argue, that certain applications are always and everywhere associated with certain colors).

Here's a thought to chew on that might suggest something relevant to this ongoing discussion: could we say that believers can have some knowledge of objective truth even though they can't know objective truth objectively? In other words, could we say that believers can "think God's thoughts after Him" NOT because they privilege one social context or another in their knowing but because they -- in whatever context they find themselves -- are biased in their knowing by the work of the Spirit and the formative assumptions of the biblical worldview? Don't we as Reformed believers have to affirm something close to this, and might it be relevant to our ongoing discussions about theological method? Just curious.

Thank you all for your patience and for indulging this tangent. I'll check out now so that you can get back to your discussion of exposition, and I'll continue to follow the discussion with interest.

Respectfully,
Paul

23/06 13:16:01

asfran wrote:

Emmanuel,

I think you make an excellent point. Cultures or should we say people groups ARE different.

I think we must consider the fact that Scripture gives us a clear example of how the message of the Gospel does not or cannot change, but methods or delivery styles can.

Take for example the Gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. A cursory reading reveals that there are significant differences in approach or perspectives from which they were written, however, they all formed a complete testimony about Jesus.

Matthew wrote to Jews - Concerned with presenting Jesus as Messiah, the King of the Jews. Lots of O.T. qoutes presenting various aspects of Jesus life and ministry as the fulfillment of O.T. messianic prophesies.

Mark targeted a Gentile audience, mainly Romans -Concerned with presenting Jesus as the Servant who came to suffer for sins. His short action oriented approach would likely appeal to the Romans!

Luke addressed a Gentile audience - As an educated Greek himself, he wrote using very sophisticated literary Greek language. Portrays Jesus as the Son of Man, the answer to the needs and hopes of the human race.

John wrote to Greeks - Concerned with presenting the true identity of Jesus as the incarnate God-Man. Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God! He centers on the person and work of Christ.

As those of us who have the truth, how is it affecting us to serve those within the broader AA church, communities, etc.? Are we weeping over them as Jesus did Jerusalem? Do we display the exemplary attitude that Paul did toward the Corinthians(who had so many needed adjustments) as we seek to correct them? or Are we mainly concerned that they join us and began learning and imitating those who have taught us?

23/06 14:30:34

Colin Thomas wrote:

Emmanuel,

I'm not sure I go with your example ...

I too deal with young people involved in gangs and offending, both in my work and in my church life.

If I had a chance to speak to these young people - via the pulpit - I don't think I would preach principally on 'the call to love one's neighbour, to not seek his harm' - it may make a side point - but they need to be urged to seek Christ. They need regeneration or the 'brotherly love' bit makes no sense to them.

Now whether this is done in an expository fashion or not .....

Colin Thomas

24/06 12:47:42

Emmanuel Viray wrote:

Hi Mr. Thomas,

I get your point. I do believe in the need for regeneration. However, that's not something that could be seen. Behavior is the only thing that could be seen so it is important to address it. I would always ultimately point to Chirst, his example, his work, his person and call people to put their faith in him. That should always be the goal of Christian preaching, however it is done. I also think it is possible to do that in the context of preaching on living at peace with others.

Should it be done in an expository fashion? I think despite all the explaining, in the end, we all have different thoughts on what is expository preaching (connotations are influenced by experience). My thinking is, if it resonates with the audience (no matter who they are) and it lifts up Christ, that is what matters. If it does not resonate and does not lift up Christ, then things have to change.

26/06 08:53:51

19/06: Response to Q on Expository Preaching

Comments

qdog wrote:

qdog wrote:

wwdunc wrote:

TmanKillah(same) wrote:

anonymous wrote:

Wyeth Duncan wrote:

jesse gistand wrote:

TmanKillah(same) wrote:

TmanKillah(same) wrote:

TmanKillah(same) wrote:

RBAFounderX wrote:

RBAFounderX wrote:

RBAFounderX wrote:

Paul wrote:

Sheviewer wrote:

Wyeth Duncan wrote:

Wyeth Duncan wrote:

TmanKillah(same) wrote:

Gentry wrote:

Gentry wrote:

TmanKillah(same) wrote:

Wyeth Duncan wrote:

TmanKillah(same) wrote:

TmanKillah(same) wrote:

Paul wrote:

Jesse Gistand wrote:

Wyeth Duncan wrote:

TmanKillah(same) wrote:

Emmanuel Viray wrote:

Paul wrote:

asfran wrote:

Colin Thomas wrote:

Emmanuel Viray wrote:

Add Comment

Sidebar