I was listening to another lecture about preaching by Timothy Keller, who is the country’s foremost expert on preaching.  He has the fruit to prove it.  If you don’t get what he is doing, try harder.  Of course he is not perfect, as he would say, and perfect is never an option.  We should always be attempting bigger and better things, moving mountains.

Among other things, he mentioned his love for and the necessity of expository preaching.  This is of course the Presbyterian tradition.  And given the number of other recent orthodoxies he challenges, this is not a piece of furniture he wants to move too far.  But he did go all around the edges encouraging other types of sermons, which is great.

St Paul Preaching in Athens[Non-Expository], Raphael, c. 1515 

It got me thinking though.  Why is it that being directed by God, through an expositional schedule is any different than being directed by God in other ways?  You can say, I preached Romans 4 because we are in Romans and I am letting the text direct the preaching.  But why not Genesis 12?  There is still human choice in what book you chose, how detailed your sermons are, as well as every word you chose and what order you put them in(Not to get into the direction of the Muses too much.).  Why is it any different than if you took up your daily newspaper and addressed the sins of that day?  Did you write the news?  Are these not the problems that were given to you to deal with as Christians?  Are we not to be salt and light to the world around us.  Missionaries in place?  Or perhaps more to the point, what if the pastor listens to the congregants going through his office and addresses the problems they seem to be having, from the pulpit?  Is this not the task of the good shepherd, to lead his sheep?  He didn’t invent the wolves that attack them.  He didn’t cause the grass to grow on this hill and not on that one.  By addressing problems as they come is he not also allowing God to direct his steps?

I think also of the way Paul spoke of his work to the various churches.  He was not ashamed to list his credentials, and they were great, but not among them was ‘magician’ or ‘superman’.  His most important qualification was as faithful suffering servant.  We sometimes give the apostles super human characteristics, to excuse our own bad behavior.  I have heard pastors often say “well he was an apostle.”  to excuse their bad exegesis of the Old Testament.  The message is all too clear; Paul could do whatever he wanted because he was magic, we just have to read the New Testament.  But that is not how Paul presented it.  He called his own actions into question if they diverged from the Orthodoxy he and the other Disciples, and Jesus had preached(Gal. 1:8).  But on the other hand Paul was not shy about putting his name on his work. Paul refers to himself almost a thousand times in his letters and not just to give postmodern examples of his own failure.

Rom. 1:8 “I thank God for you.”  1:13 “I do not want you to be ignorant.”  1:16 “I am not ashamed.” 8:18 “For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us.” 9:1   “I am speaking the truth in Christ—I am not lying; my conscience bears me witness in the Holy Spirit”  12:1   “I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship.”

1Cor. 4:14   “I do not write these things to make you ashamed, but to admonish you as my beloved children.”  5:9   “I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people…”  9:8   “Do I say these things on human authority? Does not the Law say the same? “ (He appeals to the law, can we not do the same?) 11:1  “Be imitators of me, as I am of Christ.”

I hear similar complaints about the work or life of Jesus.  I say, “well Jesus did this or that”.  And people respond, “You’re not Jesus”.  But in a real sense we are Jesus, we are the body of Christ, we are his hands and feet on this earth(I Cor. 12).  That’s how he set it up.  That’s why what we do here matters and we shouldn’t be afraid to own it.  We should also be willing to repent when our actions are not like Jesus.

As Keller goes into his wonderful discipline of rhetoric, of reaching the people you are speaking to, he encourages a connection and a listening to your audience that is so lacking.  And I think preaching non-exegetical sermons, sermons which listen to what your people need, what the world needs, is a further extension of this type of shepheardly love for the congregation and the world.  There are of course abuses on every side.  I have heard expositional sermons which are such an abuse of the text I was furious.  They were clearly imposing their pet biases, or rather pet excuses for sin, on every passage.  And I have heard pastors pick and choose to the point that the sermons are not exegetical, but they are all the same.  And that seems to be the biggest proof that the only voice in the sermon is the Pastor.  Or perhaps a better term would be ‘activist’.  Because the speaking of the Spirit is real and it is crucial.

But fears of gospel marketing campaigns and the emergent church, shouldn’t keep us from addressing the real needs of the people.  Listening to what is going on in your church and community is the other necessary half of preaching the Gospel.  This is also God given guidance.  If your people speak French, getting up and reading the Bible in German every week is not preaching the gospel, though it may be the best, most true sermon ever.  We need to put a few things back on the table.  Any good principle can go bad when it becomes a sterile rule.  Strict exegesis has become this rule, which is probably why there is an emergent church.  Don’t be afraid to put your name on your sermon, for good or ill.  And if it doesn’t bring good fruit, don’t cling to your doctrinal statement or your seminary creed.  Repent and go a different way