The Anatomy of Exposition: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos

“The Anatomy of Exposition: Logos, Ethos, and Pathos” by Kent Hughes, Senior Pastor of The College Church, Wheaton, Illinois. He is the author of numerous volumes, including Disciplines of a Godly Man, Disciplines of Grace, and the extremely popular Preaching the Word series. From: The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology. Volume 3, Summer, 1999. Available at http://www.sbts.edu/media/publications/sbjt/sbjt_1999summer5.pdf Accessed 08/04/2012

     Hughes begins his article with a treatise on what he refers to as “dis-exposition,” a pejorative term meaning a bevy of things other than exposition. As an example, he mentions the de-contexted sermon, the moralized sermon, the lensed sermon, the doctrinalized sermon and the silenced sermon. All of these are sermons where the preacher focuses on his own pet peeves or sugar stick topics instead of finding the exegesis and preaching that. He might, as Hughes mentions, preach a Christmas sermon from Revelation 11:10: ““And those who dwell on the earth will

rejoice over them and celebrate; and they will send gifts to one another.” “Surely not?” the serious expositor may ask. But it did happen.

     The idea behind Hughes’ article is that preachers must turn from the pop psychology of “felt needs” and return to biblical based preaching that focuses on an exegetical, expositional approach. He quotes William Willimon, Dean of the Chapel at Duke University as saying,

Do you know how disillusioning it has been for me to realize that many of these self-proclaimed biblical preachers now sound more like liberal mainliners than liberal mainliners? At the very time those of us in the mainline, old-line, sidelined were repenting of our pop psychological pap and rediscovering the joy of disciplined biblical preaching, these “biblical preachers” were becoming “user-friendly” and “inclusive,” taking their Homiletical cues from the “felt needs” of us “boomers” and “busters” rather than the excruciating demands of the Bible. I know why they do this. After all, we mainline-liberal-experiential- expressionists played this game before the conservative evangelical reformed got there… The psychology of the gospel—reducing salvation to self esteem, sin to maladjustment, church to group therapy, and Jesus to Dear Abby— is our chief means of perverting the biblical text.”

Hughes then explains that the answer to resolving this plight among evangelicals is reverting back to the basic Homiletical underpinning of logos, ethos, and pathos.

In Logos, Hughes sees the crux of exposition as bound up in Biblical authority. Do we cherish the authority and potency of the Bible? Without the proper correlation between the Bible authority and its impact on a believers life, preaching loses its most vital role; transformation. Through a proper understanding of the role of the Holy Spirit as Scriptures author, we understand that preaching that word then activates the power of the Spirit for transformation in the life of the believer and for salvation for the unbeliever.

In ethos, Hughes writes that, “Biblical exposition is enhanced when the preacher invites the Holy Spirit to apply the text to his own soul and ethical conduct.” In other words, he is saying that truth in and through preaching start in a then comes through the man. Who we are as men will dictate how successful we are as expositors. Preaching is more about what comes through us as opposed to what passes through our lips.

Lastly, he focuses on pathos, the preacher’s passion. This is to be Spirit directed passion, not trumped up feelings for the audience’s sake. Martin Llyod-Jones calls that “method acting for preachers.” Instead, the preacher should be alive with the text, what it means for him and his people. When the text is properly exposited, he will have passion galore to share that good word and the good news of his Savior.

Hughes’ article is funny, well researched, and thoughtful. He balances the subjects of expository preaching, homiletics, and human nature in a light hearted but profound way. I would highly recommend the article to a preacher just beginning his Homiletical studies, or to an old timer that needs a refreshing on the subject.

John Calvin, The Man and His Preaching

“The Divine Majesty of the Word: John Calvin, The Man and His Preaching” by John Piper, Senior Pastor of Ashland Bethlehem Baptist Church in Minneapolis, Minnesota and author of several books including, Living the Vision of Jonathan Edwards. From: The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology. Volume 3, Summer, 1999. Available at http://www.sbts.edu/media/publications/sbjt/sbjt_1999summer2.pdf Accessed 07/24/2012

     The absolute foundation of John Calvin’s theology, doctrine, and homiletics is not bound up in perseverance of the saints, predestination, or particular redemption. Instead, Calvin’s highest ideal was what he referred to as a “zeal to illustrate the glory of God.”

     This phrase was first used by Calvin to refute a letter sent to Geneva by Cardinal Sadolet, attempting to bring the early Reformers back into the Catholic fold. Calvin’s response was so grand that it brought praise from Martin Luther. His push back against Catholicism was not found in transubstantiation, papal authority, or priestly indulgences, but in their lack of understanding of the supremacy of God’s Sovereignty. This shows through in Calvin’s later writings, and especially in his Homiletical style.

     Piper’s article is written to show how the Reformer’s life and theology ultimately determined his homiletical style, which was, according to Piper, expositional. This is a natural flowing from Calvin’s sense of the Scriptures as being the ultimate authority, as opposed to any human authorship--such as the papacy. Coming from the Catholic church of the day, where the Scriptures were in flux and the Pope had equivalent authority, Calvin preached the authority of God's Word alone. When the Scriptures began to be made available to the hoi polloi, it became necessary to begin the process of exegeting the meaning, and delivering them through expository sermons instead of topical homilies.

     What Piper shows in this article is Calvin’s view of the majesty of God as seen in the Scriptures. This convinced him that the Scriptures were indeed the very Word of God. Calvin wrote, “We owe to the Scripture the same reverence which we owe to God, because it has proceeded from Him alone, and has nothing of man mixed with it.” From this Calvin wrote the great Institutes, many commentaries, gave lectures, and of course, preached regularly in Geneva and abroad. All of this was in expositional form.

     Calvin was so dedicated to the belief in expositional preaching that he carried it out in every sermon. In fact, one of the great stories about Calvin revolves around his dedication to verse-by-verse expositional preaching. In 1538, Calvin preached on Easter Sunday, and was banished by the church council the next day. When Calvin was allowed to return three years later in 1541, he picked up his preaching from the very next verse!

     Piper points to three things that led to Calvin’s affinity for expositional preaching. First, Calvin was convinced that the Word was given for the people, and to the people. Not for the clergy, or to the clergy. It was to be a lamp to light the people’s path and a guide to direct the people’s steps. By exposing the people to the Word, he was exposing them to God’s plan for their life.

     Second, Calvin was aghast at the thought of a preacher standing in the pulpit and proclaiming his own thoughts. Calvin believed in letting the Scriptures be the catalyst for understanding God’s will. He wrote, “When we enter the pulpit, it is not so that we may bring our own dreams and fancies with us.” It was imperative to Calvin that the preacher say what God intended to be said, and not what the preacher wanted to say. The third thing Piper brings out is that Calvin wanted so very much for the people to see the Word of God as the Word of GOD. This brings the article full circle, as Calvin wanted above all for God’s glory and sovereignty to shine from his pulpit into the people’s life

Piper’s article was brilliantly written and disseminated. He shows us the background and thought processes of one of the greatest theological minds from the Christian faith, and particularly how this history shaped his preaching.

Expositional Preaching as a Mark of a Healthy Church

“Sermon: Expositional Preaching as a Mark of a Healthy Church” by Mark Dever, Pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D. C. and author of Nine Marks of A Healthy Church. From: The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology. Volume 3, Summer, 1999. Available at http://www.sbts.edu/media/publications/sbjt/sbjt_1999summer6.pdf Accessed 07/20/2012

     What makes a good church? Mark Dever begins this article by asking the question. There is certainly no shortage of scholarly answers, cultural assertions, and man on the street speculations. Nonetheless, it is a question that all Believer’s should ask, whether or not they are in a “good” church now or not. After all, even if we consider our church to be good, healthy, and relevant, there are always those who will venture in for a first experience, and retention is based on their feelings as well.

     Dever answers his own question by telling the reader the most important mark of a health church is expositional preaching. The remaining article articulates his conclusions. Summarized, the idea is that while church growth strategist might make all sorts of suggestions, the bottom line is the respect of God’s Word among God’s people.

     For Dever, honoring God through the Scriptures is paramount, and supplants many modern ideas on church grow, such as worship style, relevance or so-called “felt needs,” and such bane and trivial things as cleanliness of the women’s bathrooms. While all of these things are certainly important, they cannot be the most important issue in the life of the church, if the church is to be seen as “good” or as “healthy”.

     Over the recent decades, the Worship Wars of style, format, and tolerability have caused many churches to decline, grow, split, or even fold. Worship is an important aspect, and one of Rick Warren’s five purposes of the church. Nevertheless, worship itself should flow from a proper understanding of God’s Word. As Dever points out, while a church that does not practice expositional preaching may have the marks of a healthy church, without the proper understanding of God’s Word, these might very well be accidental. Secure nurseries and sparkling bathrooms, contemporary worship, and wonderful service and fellowship can be a shell of mediocrity in the life changing aspect of the centrality of the Gospel message. In other words, do clean bathrooms change people for the eternal?

     Dever delineates between expositional and topical sermons, including providing a well thought out definition for both. Topical preaching, for Dever is defined as a sermon that, “begins with a particular topic on which the preacher wants to preach and then assembles truth from various texts of the Bible.” The topical sermon can be expositional, but usually is not, characterized by Bible bouncing. Dever writes of his experiences with topical preaching. “I already knew what I wanted to say when I set out to prepare this sermon, as opposed to what is usually the case when I preach expositionally. In the latter instance I may be surprised by the message of the text.”

     Expositional preaching is juxtaposed to topical preaching by Dever and he states that, “expositional preaching is that preaching which takes for the point of a sermon the point of a particular passage of Scripture.” In other words, the point of preaching is to find the point of the passage, then relate that to the modern church. By finding the nugget of truth in the passage itself, and not forcing of chipping away at the Bible passage to make it fit a topical point, we more faithful honor the Scripture as Authoritative for our personal lives and the life of the church. Ergo, expositional preaching is the mark of a healthy church.

     Dever ends the article with another question: “So what is it that makes a really good church?” And He answers the question as a summation of the article; “(It is) more than the parking and pews and greeting and programs and nurseries and music, and even more than the preacher, it is what is preached—the Word

of God.”

     Dever’s article was right on target. The importance of these tertiary issues cannot be down played. Parents want to feel their children are safe. Mother’s want to have a sense of cleanliness in the church building (whether or not the bathroom should be the test is debatable) and things like parking and worship style are important to the membership and visitors. Ultimately; however, the bottom line is “why do we gather?” If not for the glory of God and the life changing message of the Gospel, then all is for naught anyway.

A View from the Retail Market: The Promise of Theological Interpretation of Scripture for Preaching

“A View from the Retail Market: The Promise of Theological Interpretation of Scripture for Preaching” by Patrick J. Wilson, Pastor of Williamsburg Presbyterian Church, Williamsburg, Virginia. From: The Journal of Theological Interpretation volume 2.2 (2008) Available at EBSCOhost: http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=10&sid=c1e8b7fb-d8e8-45a9-84c8-5effee9484a7%40sessionmgr12&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=rfh&AN=ATLA0001822139 Accessed 07/18/2012

     Once again the title of the article intrigued me, which should say something about titling of sermons, but that would best be reserved for another article. Wilson, a pastor in Virginia, has written many articles on preaching and ministry. In “A View from the Retail Market: The Promise of Theological Interpretation of Scripture for Preaching” Wilson looks at preaching from an expository style that would readily relate to the so-called market place of Christianity, the Sunday morning pew sitters.

     Wilson’s premise is that the exegete can prepare creative and imaginative sermons and preach to live and intent audiences while faithfully preaching theologically sound messages. In Wilson’s mind, it is easy for the daily grind of ministry and the three-to-thrive mentality to entice preachers to run to easy-to-preach passages. Subsequently, this has caused a great vacuum in modern homiletics.  Also, the degradation of Biblically literate congregations also frustrates the homiletician that wishes to preach from Philemon or Obadiah. Nonetheless, he stated thatwe do not have to run away from these obscure passages.

     In a wonderful insight from the demands of the “market place,” Wilson encourages the preacher to view the art of preaching in a mirrored image of the contemporary concept of sermons and congregational expectations. He writes that we tend, as pastor-theologians, to reverse the order of authority in regards to Scripture and relevance.

     Imagine what would happen if the pastor believes “that a shift can imperceptibly occur so that the stress falls on the scripture's being rendered useable for preaching, as opposed to the sermon being crafted to be useful to God's message in Scripture." In other words, the pastor, in preparing a sermon, does not beat out of Scripture a nugget of golden truth, but instead allows the truth already present escape. In this way, the theological truth becomes the usable teaching point.

      

     Wilson is correct in his estimate that these nuggets of truth do not come in moments of sheer inspiration. Not even will they show up in the second, or for that matter, the tenth reading of the passage. They will appear through an abiding with, and as a part of, the Scripture, allowing the Holy Spirit to guide us. So called “rabbit-chasing” (the act of running all over Scripture to provide a point) stops the exegetical process from unveiling the true nugget. The homiletician that stays put in a pericope has the best chance of revealing the present nugget of truth, as opposed to hacking it out for himself.

     Wilson gives a final truism in how preachers can better theologically interpret Scripture. Wilson writes that, "No preacher can ever be astonishing (in a positive sense!) unless he has first been astonished. The astonishment that funds preaching seldom happens in the blinding moment of inspiration but rather occurs with amazing regularity for those who ‘abide’ deeply and quietly with a text.” In a more Southernesque colloquialism, “You cannot truly amaze the audience, until you have been amazed by the Word!”

     Wilson ends the article by asking the question, “What is the point of theological interpretation of Scripture?” The answer to that question could be cumbersome and verbose, to say the least. Notwithstanding, however, is the simplistic assertion that the purpose of the theological interpretation of Scripture is the grand purpose of all life--giving Glory to God. All proclamation of Scripture should have that as its end goal. As Wilson points out, even the angels proclaiming the Advent did so for God’s glory.

     Wilson’s article is light-hearted and humorous (my favorite type) with-out being flippant or coming across as arrogant. His look at the scholarly theme of the theological interpretation of Scripture is brought to life with and by a pastor/preacher's heart. He readily acknowledges that his article is a look at the market place from the market place and as such he presents an article about preaching from a preacher.

Is Application Necessary in the Expository Sermon?

“Is Application Necessary in the Expository Sermon?” by Hershel York, Professor of Preaching at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, Pastor of Ashland Avenue Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky and co-author of Preaching With Bold Assurance. From: The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology. Volume 3, Summer, 1999. Available at http://www.sbts.edu/media/publications/sbjt/sbjt_1999summer7.pdf Accessed 07/24/2012

     “To apply, or not to apply?” that is the question…at least the question Dr York asks in this article on expository sermons. Should the preacher simply exegete the Scriptures or should he attempt to make an application from the text that the audience can use as a “take away” from his sermon? The debate among scholars is real, although probably less practical in the real world of day-to-day ministry. Nevertheless, the article treats the issue and its impact in the expositors preparation. The detractors of application argue  that it lessens the authority of God’s Word, while protagonists counter that application is the best method of demonstrating that very authority.

     York contends that even the great theolog Karl Barth believed that application was a neigh impossibility for any human preacher to get right, and that being faithful to the truth of the text keeps us from properly bridging the gap from the original to the current audience. York presents the argument as inferential as opposed to direct. Or, stated another way, there is no direct application, only concepts that the modern hearer can infer from the text.

York; however, holds to the belief that the text deserves to be applied by the audience. He therefore implores the exegete to provide application when preaching expository sermons. York writes; “we are convinced that expository preaching which includes direct and explicit application to the lives of the hearers is the most effective. Those who are committed to an expository model must be determined to do more than merely explain the text in its original context.”

Leading the audience to application is no less important than leading them to understand the meaning. Ergo, sermons without application are simply the expositor regurgitating the facts of the text in Homiletical form. If York is correct, then is not preaching, but oral commentary. As Jerry Vines is quoted as saying, “much of the ineffective expository preaching of our day is due to the failure to relate Bible facts to the contemporary world.” This inadequacy in proper exposition leads Stephen Olford to write about application that, “So many people hear the what of our message but never hear the how of our message.”

With so many “homiletical experts” in today’s preaching world advocating application in expository sermons, it is wise to accept that today’s audience needs and desires the application of the Word as much as (if not more than) the facts of the Word. Nevertheless, the question remains “how does the exegete get from fact to application?” York sees the answer in the perspicuity doctrine of the Reformers. The clarity of Scriptural truth is not threatened by the clear application of that truth to modern hears. But in order to get there we must bridge the gap that exists between the original audience and modern hearers. York’s illustration of this point is 1 Corinthians 11 and a modern understanding of women’s veils. How does one reconcile the Scripture and the "modern" woman's lack of covering while praying? One could also argue from an illustration of money. How does the modern hearer understand the difference between a talent and ten thousand talents unless the exegete explains the concept of a day’s wage?

York’s conclusion then, is that “application is the vital link between God’s eternal Word given in antiquity and the concerns of men and women in the present. Preachers need not discuss the option of 'needs-based preaching,' because the biblical revelation is more than adequate to touch hearers across the spectrum of humanity. The role of the expository preacher is to make biblical truth plain enough for listeners to understand its meaning and to demonstrate its relevance.”

    

     York's article is well received by this reviewer. Application is not just a necessary evil; it is a necessary and critical part of the sermon. Preaching is to be the elevation of simple commentary of a portion of Scripture. It is to be the highlighting aspect of the Believer’s week, the opportunity to hear God’s Word proclaimed by God’s man so that the audience might be able to apply that Word in their everyday world. York does a masterful job of explaining the need for application, presenting valid arguments from both camps, and concluding that application I an interregnal part of expository sermons.