Topical Teaching vs. Expository Teaching

[EricH]

Both are valid forms of preaching as long as the content is scripturally based

[ParanoidAndroid]

Hmm, Systematic Theology vs Biblical Theology, I don't believe I've ever seen them put up as opposing forces in a debate before. Interesting........

I don't think one needs to say "one is better than the other". Each has the advantages and disadvantages. I think if the person giving the sermon is inexperienced, or (like might happen at a Youth Group) untrained, exposition seems much safer, in that the passage will be studied in context. However, topical studies are also valid theologically. The problem is that in order to give a theologically sound topical talk (or Bible study) the leader/preacher will need to have gone through each of the passages and done all the exposition already. Untrained or inexperienced leaders/preachers may find themselves supporting their topical discussion with passages that are not necessarily contextually correct. As such, though it might seem easier to preach or teach on a topic, it actually is more work to create a theologically sound discussion on the topic. Much easier, in my opinion, to do plain exposition.

But I don't think you could view one or the other as "better" or "more correct".

Just my thoughts though

~ Paranoid Android

[Marnie]

I'm with OC, sound expository preaching seems to be the preferred style of preaching. All the sermons recorded at length in Scripture are expositional in style. Topical sermons (Alistair Begg calls them the lazy preacher's choice) have a place, but a steady diet of them is not good.

Haddon Robinson (homiletics expert and one of the 10 greatest preachers in America) wrote this--

Twenty years ago it would have been almost impossible to bring a case to court against a minister. Today a lawyer that's defending a minister will do every thing that he can to keep the people in the jury from thinking of him as a minister. So we have lost a lot of the base, for a lot of different reasons. What we are really trying to say is, "O.K. if I can get people to study the Bible and to see the text, I believe that the Bible is self-authenticating." If I can get you to really read it, to look at it, to hear it, to understand it, it has its own power to convince and to convict and to change people.

Therefore in a postmodern age one reason that we work with the biblical text is to have the authority of the text

[IslandRose]

Both are valid. My husband is a pastor and I have noticed over the years as he has grown in the ministry he leans more and more to Expository preaching. But upon occasion, it is topical.

[TheoMike]

My Homiletics professor once said that we were permitted one topical sermon a year...as long as we repented afterwards. Begg is, of course, correct, when he calls topical sermons "lazy." Pick a topic, any topic, then prooftext your opinion of that topic with half a dozen Scriptures. Having said that, topical sermons are good in a pinch or for conference preaching. I speak at pastor's retreats and such often, and sometimes I am actually assigned a topic to speak on. Of course, I consider that "speaking," as opposed to "preaching." The Lord can use both, naturally.

The weaknesses of topical sermons can be boiled down to:

1. Structure. They are structured according to the ideas and opinions of the preacher, not the Word. For example, I am going to speak on the 4 Joys of God. The problem is, of course, there are more or less depending on your reading of certain texts and of the original languages. The topical preacher tampers with the Author's original intention surrounding a passage of Scripture by lifting it out of it's original and logical presentation.

2. Context. Topical sermons rarely do justice to the purpose and intention of the passage being quoted. The topical preacher can do a great injustice to powerful portions of Scripture by using them to back up some notion of his, while ignoring the deeper meaning God, the Holy Spirit, intended for the original audience (and future audiences).

3. A bad example. A steady diet of topical sermons is like grazing all day on a little of this and a little of that, but not eating a nutritious meal. You'd starve to death if you ate like this all the time. The same thing goes for your spirit. The bad example is obvious: a parishoner never really learns how to rightly divide the Word, so when he has a genuine problem he has no idea how to USE the Word to meet his need. Topics (losing your temper, be a better parent, unemployment, etc.) are rarely found in Biblical discourse.

4. Laziness. Topical sermons are just easy to write. They require no particular skill; only the skill needed to use a concordance. Island Rose made an interesting observation that her pastor-husband preaches more expositional sermons now that he is "mature" in the ministry. This is no accident. The more one grows in the Lord and grows in grace, the more "meat" one needs. This goes for preachers, too. Too many pastors, though, whether by design or by demands of the office, just don't have (make) the time for proper sermon preparation. There is NO substitute for long hours of study and meditation on the Word. Sometimes the Holy Spirit can take your sermon in a whole different direction when you get behind the pulpit; that's up to Him. He honors preachers in their study, as they study, prepare and pray over their messages, both from behind the desk and on their knees before God.

[ParanoidAndroid]

To an extent, I think topical preaching might be considered the "lazy man's" sermon. However, I think in order to do a topical sermon well, with contextual study, it actually requires MORE work than expository preaching. As mentioned above, there are some drawbacks, but most of them can be minimized if the preacher does their homework and studies the passages in context. Then when they quote scripture to support the topic they are preaching, they are not cherry-picking the quote to suit their own agenda, but rather simply preaching on what the Bible says about the subject.

I don't believe in any way, shape, or form, that topical preaching is truly the lazy man's sermon. Only bad preachers make a topical study "lazy".

That's what I see things, anyway.

~ Regards, PA

[Eddie B]

Thanks for all your thoughts on this topic.Its good to be able to hear from other saints. It helps me on my way to better understand and grow in the lord.

I think expository teaching and preaching on a regular basis would far more meet the spiritual needs of the saints then topical and TheoMike put some really good reasons as to why this is so.Preaching & teaching from the word is not as effective as preaching and teaching the word of God.

Another ?

If expository teaching and preaching is the best method of equipping the saints for christ-like living, should this be done primarily from the N.T. or the O.T. and why do you think so?

[Marnie]

Another ?

If expository teaching and preaching is the best method of equipping the saints for christ-like living, should this be done primarily from the N.T. or the O.T. and why do you think so?

Both Testaments are equally inspired, and when Peter preached his Pentecost sermon, all he did was exposit OT Scriptures. Christ's teaching was basically re-teaching the OT, with the added dimension of the heart and inward obedience. So I would say both. In 1 Corinthians 10, Paul talks about how folks in the OT rebelled, and then adds this:

Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. (10:6)

So the OT was preserved for us, according to the above verse, anyway, so that we could learn how NOT to behave. The opposite, then, must also be true; we can learn from the good and godly examples of the many saints of G-d who lived wonderful lives; like Joseph, David, Daniel, etc.