Darryl's Blog
David Fitch: The Myth of Expository Preaching
David Fitch on The Myth of Expository Preaching:
I believe there is a myth surrounding expository preaching among N. American evangelicals. It goes like this: if the preacher follows the text more closely in his preaching, both he/she and the congregation will stay true to the Word of God. No other agendas or human wisdom will slither into the preaching. Implied is, if the preacher but applies the exegetical historical-critical skills (s)he learned in seminary and studies the text in its original language, aided by the Spirit, (s)he can arrive at the meaning of the text all by him/herself. Expository preaching, done right (with good exegesis), sticks to the already existing stable perspicuous meaning in the text. Interpretation therefore comes second and can only follow the text. In this way, expository preaching allows God's Word to drive the message and any interpretation is automatically subordinated to it. This is the mythology I believe is behind expository preaching in the evangelical world.
You may want to read the entire post.
Fitch is on to something. I like what he says about individualism, and I like where he ends up in his chapter on preaching in The Great Giveaway. But I need to wrestle through his authorial intent issue. I'm looking forward to reading Is There a Meaning in This Text? which is on its way to me now.
Categories
Preaching0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: David Fitch: The Myth of Expository Preaching.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.dashhouse.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1191
Really, Darryl.
You liked this post?
I thought it was bunch of hoogly.
I commented there, however.
I like some of what he says but he hasn't fully convinced me yet. Vanhoozer's book takes 400+ pages on the epistimelogical issues, and I'm looking forward to reading on that issue.
I'll follow the comment thread there with interest.
Paul,
You can disagree with Fitch's argument. But if you think it is a "bunch of hoogly," then I maintain that you don't understand what he is saying.
He makes several important points. You can take the position that he is wrong, even completely wrong. But to dismiss what he says out of hand tells me that you didn't hear what he was saying. Maybe you need to do better exegesis of his text :-).
Rod