The Topic of Expository Teaching

Expository preaching is the buzzword of the Reformed movement today. "If your pastor would only use expository preaching, all your churches problems would be solved," they seem to say. For those who aren't familiar with the term "expository preaching', it means to preach Scripture chapter by chapter, verse by verse, in its original order and meaning. Sounds very biblical, right? In fact, the advocates of expository preaching will tell you that avoiding the 'shallowness' of topical preaching and sticking to expository preaching will create a firm foundation for the church that will help it avoid fads of Christianity, oh the irony.

In the rush to not skip over any part of Scripture, the expository movement has somehow forgotten to check if expository preaching is Scriptural itself. Did Jesus use expository teaching? Did Paul? Did Peter? How about James? Anyone in the New Testament at all? How did God Almighty preach when He was here? How did His hand-picked followers preach?

Jesus used Scripture in His teachings, but He used it to underline the points He was making while on particular topics. His recorded teaching is all topical. In fact, there is a constant theme to His teaching: love. Some preachers in the modern era have said that we preach too much on the love of God and not enough on His wrath. I disagree. If every human from Adam to the last human to draw a breath all preached the love of God till their dying breath, we would not do the love of God justice. God would not take us aside and tell us that He doesn't love us that much. I understand what these preachers mean, that there is more to God than 'just' love. While that may be true, love was Jesus's main theme when He taught, maybe it should be ours as well. We should never undermine that love. Jesus used it as His theme in almost every message He preached. If it is important enough to God that He preached on it, it should be to us as well.

But what about the disciples? Did they teach topically? Yes, and we see that in every message that they they preached. No matter where they start, they always bring the focus back to their main topic: Jesus Christ. Paul said he wished to know nothing else among the Corinthians than Jesus Christ and Him crucified. They had an unending theme: salvation through Jesus. Even in Paul's sermon where the name of Jesus was not mentioned, the theme of God's salvation through repentance and the resurrection are made clear.

Now, I strongly believe that preachers should study the Scriptures in an expository manner themselves. The teachers of the church should have a thorough understanding of all of scripture in order to preach and lead in a Godly manner. Even group study can benefit greatly from expository study for mature and earnest Christians. However, the obsession with preaching in an expository manner is not Scriptural, nor does it seem to have the miraculous effect on churches people claim it does. You know who does have a miraculous effect on the church? Our Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ. Our relationship with Him should be our obsession. He is our theme, our hope, and our God. He should be the theme of everything we do. Every message preached should point back to Him.

Reforming Anabaptists

As our Anabaptist traditions fade and are replaced with more modern Protestant and Catholic ideas, many forms of church function are changing. We are replacing the tradition of our fore-bearers with the traditions of the fore-bearers of the Reformers. Teaching, doctrine, and style of the last five hundred years are being pulled up and quickly and quietly chucked out of the window as we scramble to replace our backward and embarrassing past with the prestigious and regal formalities of the Calvinists. All but Calvinism itself has been accepted, with patriotism being lauded as Christlike, weapons of self defense touted proudly, and Zionism becoming the norm; all the while we cover our mantles with guns, flags, and crosses.

How do Mennonites become functioning Calvinists? By turning from studying the Word to following loud, confident men. We listen hungrily to the confidence and emotion of teachers who teach the religion of Americanism. We drink up stories of the nobility of long dead men, fantasizing about becoming them, idolizing those who came before us. Instead of turning to the purity of Christ and His Word, we take in the predigested words of those who speak boldly. We idolize fallen humans of the Old Testament; sinners who are under grace, just as we are, and relish in the violence of their lives. We take the stories of Godly men and deify those men, rather than glorify the Creator of men.

Sadly very few people born as Mennonites believe or even understand anything that the Anabaptists taught. The last century of Mennonites have left a poor example of leadership and theology and instead of improving the situation, we have abandoned the focus that the original Anabaptists taught; namely, following Christ and only Christ. Instead, the majority of Mennonites have become "Reformers in Denial". That is, they adopt the teaching of Reformed personalities on tv, youtube, and the radio without understanding the theology and meaning or implications behind that teaching. We have become starved for leadership, and like starving men, we stopped checking what we are using to fill that void. In our hurry to have human leaders to look up to and admire, we have trampled the foundation that our Anabaptist forbearers insisted upon: the literal interpretation of Christ's commands and obedience to them. 

Instead of this literal interpretation, we have substituted the doctrines of the Reformed Church. Our churches may not accept TULIP theology in so many words as of yet, but that is usually out of ignorance, not disagreement. We have turned from a literal application of the Sermon on the Mount to the American Reformed teachings of justified lethal self-defense, the glory of mammon in the form of capitalism, and the inalienable rights that are promised to all men that are not found in the Bible, but instead in American Scripture, the Constitution. We reinterpret loving your enemies to somehow exclude the actual enemies of the United States or those of the new nation of Israel. The teaching of the Anabaptists is dead, so now Mennonites are now scrambling to join Calvin's followers, a mere five hundred years late to the party.

Our Anabaptist heritage doesn't make us better than other Christians, however the teaching of the original Anabaptists still is founded upon God's truth. Not because its labelled Anabaptist, but because it is founded in following Christ, literally and fully. It is not founded in adding teaching to Scripture, such as the Just War Theory or TULIP. Instead, Anabaptism is about removing these human doctrines from our faith. 

Sadly, most Mennonites don't even know the term Anabaptist, nor what it means. We have become ignorant, both of history and theology. As such we have turned to predigested theology offered in an appealing way through some easy to use media, be that tv, the radio, or youtube. As such, I very much doubt that my son's generation will have any qualms about Reformed doctrine, as the majority of them won't even bother to find out what that means. Instead, it will just permeate the church as the easiest and most available teaching to digest, with very few, if any, to care enough to find out why so many of their forefathers were martyred for disagreeing with the Reformed doctrines. While our forefathers were willing to die for rejecting man's doctrine mixed with God's command, we cannot be bothered to tell the difference. 

What Does It Mean to be a (Bat)Man?

Two years ago, I was talking to a friend of mine. He asked me a question that I have pondered in my mind for a while now. His question was this, "What is your definition of 'being a man'?" Now of course being a man can be construed as being born male and being over eighteen. But that is not what was being asked here. The question is a valid one and in our current area I'm sure many of my cohorts would say that David was a prime example of being a man. Strong, fearless, obedient, Godly. Which I agree entirely.

There is more to this question, I think. This desire to 'be a man' as we put it, permeates our society. Big beards, big trucks, concealed weapons, UFC, MMA; all these flood our society. Machoism is alive and well in America and in the church. There is an intense obsession with 'manliness' in our generation. There are websites, books, and YouTube tutorials on 'how to be a man'.

While being manly is all well and good, there is logical and human reason why our generation of Christian men feel the need to look up to facial hair and testosterone. It feels good to be capable of instilling our will on our fellow man, to force them to yield to our strength. Much of modern 'manliness' is really just a power struggle. Its about being the biggest, bulkiest man in the bunch who gets to order the rest of the 'beta' men around. This is frankly the antithesis of Christianity. Becoming strong to force our will upon the world is the exact opposite of Christ's teachings of self-sacrifice. The reason Christians pick David as 'manly' is mainly due to his war record. I've been hard pressed to find anyone in our generation who was obsessed with the manliness of David's poetry. Instead, they all point to his battles, the blood he spilled, as the cause to admire his manliness.

While I do believe that David is a great man; I have another example I prefer to use when answering this question. My incarnation of 'manliness' (excluding Christ Himself) would be Bruce Wayne, aka Batman. I'm not kidding. Well, maybe I am kidding a bit, but bear with me. Although Batman may be fictional, he sets standards that those of us attempting to be manly would do well to follow.

Bruce Wayne is a wealthy man who dedicates his life and fortune to helping those that cannot defend themselves. He does this out of his own pocket, with his own time. He doesn't do it for praise; in fact, no one knows his name. Instead, he personally invests his life in improving his city, Gotham, without accolade and without regard for the status of the person he defends.

Secondly, Batman doesn't force his will upon others; instead his goal is to defend the helpless from that very fate. His goal is to free others to make their own choices; even when those choices are foolish, nefarious, or evil, like those of his rival, the Joker. Although Batman does not believe that the Joker deserves to live, he does not take another life into his own hands. Instead, Batman attempts to free everyone, even those who despise him, to make their own choice. This is exactly what God Himself does for us. He frees us to choose, even when we choose evil. The Joker knows that Batman will never kill him; most of his plots revolve around that assumption. Batman lets Joker make his choice, yet he never condones the evil choices he makes. Batman does all in his power to negate the evil choices of others with the choices he himself makes. He incarnates the ideology that goodness cannot simply kill evil; for in doing so those who thought themselves good become the very bullying, dictatorship of evil they sought to destroy.

While this example of manliness may be a bit satirical, there is more than a grain of truth to it. The form of manliness that Christ shows us embodies this truth as well. Christ allowed everyone to make their own choice about Him; he did not force Himself upon them. He was not a brute, but a healer and defender. He allowed those who mocked Him to do so. He didn't condone the evil around Him; yet He did not force Himself upon them either. He was frank and honest with people, both in praise and condemnation.  Yet, in the end, Jesus let both groups make their choice.