Friday on the blog I took a brief look at expositional preaching. Mainly defining what expositional preaching is in the first place and then raising the question as to whether or not it is necessary for the church today. The best place to start answering this question is by taking a look at the Scriptures themselves.
In the gospel of Matthew, Jesus is seen preaching throughout all of Galilee (Matt. 4:23). In the gospel of Luke, we see Jesus sending out the apostles to go and preach (Luke 9:6). In the book of Acts, Peter and John return to Jerusalem preaching the gospel in many villages (Acts 8:25). Paul is seen preaching throughout his missionary journeys. The examples could continue to go on as men of God are seen throughout Scripture proclaiming the gospel truth.
In regards to signs and wonders, is there inherently anything wrong with them? No, but signs and wonders are always seen pointing to the message of Jesus, not replacing the message. I fear that many groups have replaced the message of Jesus in pursuits of the signs and wonders of Jesus.
In regards to certain emerging types, is there anything wrong with having an open round table discussion? No, I have a small group over at my house every Sunday night and believe it is beneficial to study the Scriptures together. But I have to agree with John Piper here who says, "Preaching is not conversation. Preaching is not discussion. Preaching is not casual talk about religious things. Preaching is not simply teaching." Rather, "Preaching is the heralding of a message permeated by the sense of God's greatness and majesty and holiness."
In regards to those who see preaching as a true and essential mark of the church, is it really necessary? My answer is absolutely yes! Although I only used New Testament examples, preaching is seen from Genesis to Revelation and if your church gets away from preaching then it inevitably replaces it with something that is other than the message that Jesus proclaimed.
This is recognizably a brief look at preaching today, but I do not believe this is an issue that is really open to discussion as far as to whether to preach or not to preach. Mark Driscoll points out that "The question is not, will there be preaching, but what will be preached." But that is another issue for another post. The purpose of this post is to primarily generate the thought process behind preaching and to hopefully encourage those of my friends who are substituting it with something else to get back to the place of preaching, and expositional preaching at that. Any thoughts? Agree or disagree?