This reminds me of a homegroup my wife and I have been participating in. It consists of older folk and there are hearts of gold there, and walks with God that are needed by us all.
But the Bible study guide is, in my view, and I hate to say this, awful. It is bad because it is fill in the blanks based on a study of James, and results in little or no engagement with the text or overall book. These dear people are not all friendly towards much more than “fill in the blank” and want to keep moving on to get through a certain section.
I hesitate to share this, but do so. We’re conditioned certain ways, one and all, and it’s hard to break out of those molds. Especially when that’s what we’ve lived with via expository preaching for sometime. True of myself as well.

nor does it engage with the overall Story found in Scripture. (the study on James)

As a preacher, I’m still unsure what truly “narrative-based preaching” is. I hear people talk about it a lot, and it seems to be the latest “rage,” but I’d like to see some examples of what experts claim that a good narrative-based sermon is. Can some one point me in the right direction?!?
Jim

Jim,
The best narrative-based “preaching” that I’ve heard is from Dan Allender. He’s president of Mars Hill Graduate School in Bothel, WA north of Seattle. I heard him speak on God and Moses meeting at the burning bush. It was transformative. He also has a message on Paul as “the chief of sinners” which, too, is quite compelling.
Scot,
Expository preaching has taken on canonical status in the evangelical (dispensational-oriented) churches. That it’s a relative new approach in church history is not well-received by many.

Well, John, I’m not so sure expository preaching is that new. I read Augustine’s sermons some, and some of Chrysostom, and Calvin and Luther … and I’m not sure it is an evangelical innovation.
The issue has to do with the authority for truth — and the more focus on the Bible the better for the evangelical.
I think the “stuck in the mud” issue is that there is such a powerful rhetorical argument about topical vs. expository, when (as Martin Lloyd-Jones showed) all good expository sermonizing is ultimately shaping the sermon around the topic inherent to the text being expounded.
And, our great NT sermon, the one by Stephen, is not expository but a narrative-retelling of Israel’s story (as he shaped it).

Scot,
How would you typify preaches such as Augustine and John Chrysostom? How about later preachers such as Luther and Calvin. Are we far afield from them? Is imitating past preaching even if it is a 20th century phenomenon (and this sounds unlikely to me)a bad thing. I’ve heard Dan Allender speak and he is quite good, but I’m not sure I could do that. I like Garrison Keillor too and I know I can’t do that. So, why would narrative preaching be held up as a golden bullet? Maybe if you could do a little historical comparisons that might help.
–Ken

Correct me if ‘im wrong, but i thought there had always been two schools of thought as far as preaching went. the alexdrian model, which was allegorical, and the antiochian model, which was more expositional (championed by St John Chrysotom) i don’t know if an either/or approach is correct. i would think it would more be a both/and.

This is great! Finally putting words on something that has perplexed me for a long time but which I have been unable to articulate. I find 99% of sermons to be easily forgotten; this helps explain why. Inviting response rather than application is much more helpful to growth/formation.
I’m curious as to why you use the word “overwhelming” as a description of prophetic Spirit in the NT.
Dana

…and I also wanted to say that the invitation to response is one of the main reasons why I read NT Wright’s sermons devotionally.
Dana

Hey Scot,
Love the website by the way… I’m a seminary student who, while evangelical, never even heard of expository preaching until I came to seminary. It seemed like such a strange concept, especially when I started noticing that what was called expository preaching was little more than topical preaching with a text made to support what the preacher already wanted to say anyway. I remember being in a preaching class, and after one guy had finished giving an topical sermon (which was not recommended, but still allowed) the professor said, “That was a great message; what would have made it better was if you had found of a text to support it.” What had been something of a romance with the idea of expository preaching went out the window at that point – the comment just felt really fraudulent. Why would it have been a better sermon if the guy had poured the pancake batter of Scripture into the waffle iron of his sermon and then cut off whatever flowed off the side? Anyway, the point is that what most people DO that gets called expository preaching is really just topical preaching in disguise – and both forms (in my opinion) betray a total lack of fascination with Scripture. In principle I think that expository preaching is better than the alternatives, but I think it has to be more than topical preaching in disguise, and it definitely has to be more than a fill-in-the-blank sort of information exchange. At minimum, I think expository preaching has have as its goal an encounter with God in Scripture where hearers are invited to imagine life differently – but maybe that’s just my charismatic heritage coming through…

Oh, and Dana, have you read NT Wright’s new book, “The Last Word”? If you haven’t I’d highly recommend it. It’s kind of a development of some of the things he’s written about Scripture previously (especially in NTPG), but with more of an ecclesial focus, with some really great recommendations for what to “do” with Scripture in the last chapter. Pick it up if you haven’t yet.

It’s on my list, Andrew!
Love your waffle iron illustration-
Dana

Ken,
I agree; we need to keep in mind the variety of good preaching — which somehow makes me think good preaching is more a charism than a technique, more about our attentiveness than a style, more about God’s Spirit than about our minds.

Doesn’t there still need to be place for the OT/NT paradigm of the prophetic word? The prophet stands as an individual on behalf of God *against* the community. Would John the Baptist be considered modernist under these terms? Isn’t the problem with Jesus that he speaks with authority, not simply citing the authority of the rabbinic community? I’m simply thinking about these as thematic or paradigmatically.
Someone can speak as a member of a community and yet still stand against that community. And I don’t know if the prophets promote individualism or community as they preach against (and for) the entire community. I suppose my question is this: Is there room for the man or woman with a burning vision of Christ to break in and claim judgment–or will he be hushed up by the community that says “Sorry, sir…you’ll have to sit down. We do our theology by majority vote.” ?

I think that the Church historically has always saw the need for interpretation to take place in the context of the Community (aka the Church). Individual interpretations tended to come more popular as a by-product of the reformation.

Scot,
You’re correct to point out examples of good “exposition” in the Church Fathers and Reformers. Have you read any of Jonathan Edwards? Hardly expositional. Yet there was not this fetish that it’s the *only* way to “rightly divide the word of truth.” What exactly did Paul mean by the “whole counsel (will) of God” in Acts 20:27? In the popular evangelical mind the phrase means “expositionally teaching the Bible from Genesis 1:1 to Revelation 22:21.” What do you think?

Just a quick comment: THE New Testament is the Sermon on the Mount …. Jesus is Lord and Master … of the Sermon!

Meant to say … “The New Testament Sermon is …” sorry

Great discussion. Expository preaching is indeed a golden calf to some. Some seem to confuse style and structure. Any “A.B.C. / 1.2.3.” that seems to come from the text plus enough historical background is “Solid Expository Preaching.” Right?
Yet, texts lend so nicely at times to narrative / intuitive / parabolic presentation. One can “exposite” a text with a narrative approach, as one can systemetize topics.
How often our forms that serve & protect us (like good policemen) become laws and lawmakers.

When I’ve been in small groups, I usually seek to end up teaching in them. One of the reasons is that I hate “discussions” by people who basically are uninformed on even the content of the Bible, let alone any idea how to approach it without simply reading it through contemporary, individualistic eye glasses. A sermon that sought to evoke a “community” response would be to invite this same problem on a larger scale. When I think of expository preaching, whatever others may thinkg, I conceive of a preacher actually going through the biblical text, so that whatever the Bible addresses, the preacher addresses. The alternative, as I have experienced it, is for the preacher to read a verse and use that solely as a spring board to go off and do whatever eh/she felt like. In one church I was a part of, this meant that no matter what text was read, the message was about God wanting to comfort us in our difficulties. To me, this is not faithful to Scripture because it has other agendas in addition to this legitimate one.
Furthermore, since the odds are quite small of getting everyone in the congregation to _study_ the Bible at all, what is the problem with looking to the preacher to do his/her homework, tell the congregation what the text means (or, in difficult cases, the possibilities) and then talk about how to apply htat? Furthermore, what is so bad about application? If I read Jeremiah 2, to pick a text at random, I don’t know how to live that out or even “respond” to it. So I’m hoping that the preacher has been guided by the Spirit to come up with a way to apply that so that Jeremiah 2 has some significance for me. Otherwise, why read Jeremiah at all?
Ken

When I’m asked how much time it takes me to prepare a sermon (or something along those lines) I respond…”A lifetime.” That is more than evasion or ‘being cute’. It is a lifetime of engaging the Lord at his word that shapes the “preaching moment.” Any comments on preaching as sacrament?

Dan,
I’m in agreement on the “lifetime” comment. I don’t see Word as Sacrament, but Word and Sacrament.

As I read these posts, it seems that there is much ado about the role of the messenger…perhaps too much? Is the Word and it’s power/ability contingent upon the means by which it is presented? Surely a botched sermon/message/homlily can get in the way, or create confusions and distractions, but are we making the power of the Word subject to those frail creatures who would present it? Paul tells Timothy to preach the Word. Acts says that “the Word of the Lord continued to grow.” Who cares about the historical trajectory of the method? Do we change people? Yes, God uses us in spite of us, but is it not God, His Spirit, and the Word? John 8 says the truth sets people free. John 17:17 says the word is truth and it changes people. As a “practioner” of the Word, yes, I want to “be good at it.” (Whatever that might means) But reading Psalm 19 or 119 sure seem to cause me to reflect on the awesome power inherent in God’s words. Am I crazy? Fill-in blanks or narrative, allegory or candles and symbols–they all miss the point. It seems whatever the camp or presentation method, we’ve put ourselves at the center, and not the Word.

Hi Joel,
If I understand what you are saying, I agree wholeheartedly. I sometimes get the impression that preachers are either afraid taht the straight message of Scripture is not enough or that people might reject what Scripture says and therefore something else is needed or that Scripture is someone inadequate for modern life. Certainly, however, God is able to speak through His Word, even in ways that were not planned by the preacher potentially.

Understanding what “narrative preaching” is can be difficult. Essentially it is an offshoot of, or growth from, the New Homiletic pioneered by Fred Craddock, David Buttrick, and others a generation ago. This movement approached sermons inductively, and did not assume the unquestioned “authority” of the preacher (traditional, “espository” preaching of a generation ago).
One thing the New Homiletic has in common, despite its different models, is this: It seeks to provide the audience with an experience of the text. In this goal, it seeks to elevate the role of the audience as participants in the sermon process.
Narrative preaching, then, is an outgrowth of the New Homiletic. Authors like Euguene Lowry, Jensen, Ellingsen, Campbell and others have written a lot on it. Basically in its different forms it seeks either to preach a “plot-like” sermon (Lowry) or re-tell biblical narratives in creative formats that provide an emotional experience on the part of the audience, rather than just reporting on exegetical niceties from the text, or attempting to distil the text into themes or bullet points.
The main thing is to understand the connection between the New Homiletic and narrative preaching. This can be confusing. The Journal of the Evangelical Homiletical Society devoted an entire journal recently (Fall 2005) to the discussion of “What is the New Homiletic?” That might be a good place to start if you’re interested in pursuing the connection.
Who am I? Nobody, just somebody who used to be a pastor in Portland, OR who tried the method I was taught in homiletics for years without success. I got burned, got out of ministry altogether. Now I am in England writing a dissertation on narrative preaching and rhetorical criticism. Crazy enough, eh?

Clint,
Thanks for the information. What does this approach do with non-narrative material? It would seem that usch an approach would have no place for most of the prophets, Proverbs, Qoheleth, any of epistles and parts of other biblical books. My issue with any approach to preaching I’ve encountered in the last several years is that it privileges a tiny bit of the Bible and virtually ignores the rest. It’s no wonder, for example, that believers I encounter are woefully ignorant of the OT. What they hear preached is pretty ignorant of the OT too.

Ken, thanks for the comments under #20. Well stated. And Clint, did you get to the bottom of why Portland didn’t “work”. At the risk of being taken wrong or harshly, I guess I do think it’s “crazy” if you continue to do and pursue that, for whatever reason, the Lord does not seem to be blessing. Before blaming a method, maybe it’s the man. I have too many flashbacks of seminary classes full of academics who wasted time musing on ministry and playing the “what’s the vogue rabbit trail of the day” game…which again, I think most methods are. It seems we’ve lost our taste and satisfaction with God’s Word as Ezekial did–or Jeremiah–that it was sweet like honey. And as Ken, I beleive rightly states, we’ve lost the unction and willingness to be heralds and proclaimers of the truth…isn’t it truth that sets people free, not the means or method? God is big. I am a worm. The Word is powerful. I’m an imp. While I don’t agree with the application of their zeal, the Muslim response to the Danish cartoons and the Sunni reaction to their temples destruction bears out a level of intensity and desire to defend their prophet that I think we ought to be sobered by. Please know, Clint I am not seeking to attack you, but to help the dialogue on what I think is a crisis within “Christianity” today. We must fear and tremble our way through a humble, consecrated preparation of God’s Word–and then feed the sheep. An enemic church needs the Word–and it’s death will not be because we didn’t find the right vehicle to communicate it, but because we undersold the value of it in our quest for some nouveau, emerging, paradigm-shift, drivel. Ezra stood and read the law, from morning until midday for seven days, gave the sense of it, and the people were broken and worshipped. I’m confident he didn’t have three point, told a good story, or asked for a response instead of application…he got God’s Word in front the people and allowed the Holy Spirit to do what He does best. And if the cultural analysis, sociological radar is going off in your mind right now, “But that wouldn’t ‘work’ today!” I think we’ve become wise in our own eyes. Paul didn’t come with “cleverness of speech” but in simplicity “so that your faith would not rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power of God.” So there’s my dissertation. Let the rocks fly

Hi Ken and Joel,
From what I’ve seen, one of the weaknesses of narrative preaching is that it does have a tendency to avoid non-narrative material. That is why I’m doing what I’m doing here, trying to use prophetic literature in a narrative preaching application. I don’t think it will be a seamless integration, but hey!–why not try. At least I can get a degree out of the deal–hopefully.
Let’s see–why Portland didn’t work. Where to begin. Essentially I lived for years without intentionality. I became an elder at a church, then later on staff, then ended up as pastor there. Basically the short story is, we had a church that had divisions on the elder team that proved to be irreparable. In the end, we had to close the church because the dysfunctions were so deep that it couldn’t work.
The great thing was, in some of the changes we were able to make, some people’s lives were changed. That group ended up starting a new church called “Imagine” that is going well today.
Mainly my issue with preaching was that I tried the methods I was taught in seminary, but the culture was so unhealthy that I’m not sure any method would’ve penetrated. In this context I believe my ministry was literally a “no-win” situation.
Hey Joel, I don’t feel attacked at all. Remember, I used to be a pastor.

I just thought of something else–if you’re interested in my dissertation abstract, check my blog out at: http://www.propheticrhetoric.blogspot.com. On there is also some of my longer rants about where I’m at in relation to church, etc.

What a fascinating discussion! Thanks for so many wise comments and intriguing questions. A handy summary of many of the variations of “narrative” preaching can be found in Richard Eslinger’s “The Web of Preaching.” Strangely he omits a thumbnail sketch of postliberal varieties of narrative preaching (especially Charles Campbell’s approach) — even while he is a member of that camp. His postliberal predilections do show themselves in his chapter on preaching and imagination, and he contributed to the conversation in his book, “Narrative and Imagination.”
My take on narrative preaching is this. First, theories can be sorted into broad categories of “Sermon as story” (Wes Allen, Richard Jensen, for example), “Sermon including stories” (Fred Craddock, Charles Rice, and African American preachers would be prime examples here), and “Sermon itself as plotted narrative” (Eugene Lowry, David Buttrick, and, to some degree, Paul Scott Wilson). Note that guys predominate here, and the energy seems to have run out in the mid-nineties. The “narrative” crowd were reacting against a dominant rationalist/revivalist “3-points-and-a-poem” model, heir to the Puritan “Doctrine-Reasons-Application” approach, in which you extract a thematic “doctrine” from one or more verse(s), cobble together scriptural support for this theme, and then show how it “applies” to some aspect of human living. Behind this lies an Enlightenment understanding of human cognition in which the preacher opens up the heads of the good congregants, pours in the info, and – presto! – you’ve got faith, if you can repeat back the doctrine. Narrative preaching arose with the “New Homiletic” revolution which dared to suggest that human beings might just be more than brains on two legs, and so suggested “story” as a more appropriate model for preaching toward faithful living today. Non-European-male portions of Christianity have met the “New Homiletic” revolution with a raised eyebrow: “so what’s so new about this? We’ve been doing this for years, and you dissed us royally as primitive. Glad you’re finally catching on….”
One more aspect of narrative preaching: to various degrees (and with differing sophistication) these approaches understand the Judaic-Christian faith as living in the larger narrative of “God-with-us.” The postmodern jury is still wrestling with this “metanarrative.”
Hope this helps the discussion.
Bob Howard
Currently Adjunct Professor of Homiletics and Liturgics at Louisville Presbyterian Theological Seminary