It’s probably not fair to group Chappell and Sexton in your complaint on preaching style. While Chappell doesn’t preach through entire books in series, all of the more than 50 sermons I have heard/read were drawn from a passage of Scripture (not a single verse) and all of the points of those messages are drawn from the text. In addition, he supports each of his points with numerous additional Scripture references. I guess it depends a little on how someone defines expositiory preaching, but his stuff fits almost all the definitions I know.

None of the preceding is a blanket endorsement of everything/anything LBC/WCBC. However for what it’s worth, I do have a good friend out there who spent time at FBC Hammond. He told me that at Lancaster, there are dozens of adults that he personally led to the Lord faithfully coming to church compared to zero in Hammond. They do focus on the complete Great Commission rather than just one part.

Hi Jack,

Thanks for the comment. I appreciate your points, and I realize that in some circles very poor preaching is the norm. I appreciate the frustration that comes from that kind of approach. The current controversy, however, is mostly among men who are in a circle where I am astonished that expository preaching is not the norm. Whatever else can be said about BJU, Maranatha, Northland, etc, I think they have been emphasizing Biblical exposition for a long time now.

Personally, I think expository preaching is easier than topical preaching because good topical preaching requires the exegesis of much more material in order to do it properly.

My point here, though, is that it is not a sin to preach topically (but most topical messages are not well done) and that I think the charge is false, especially in the FBF circles where there has been an emphasis on Biblical exposition for some time.

I do appreciate what you are saying on this, however.

On the foolishness point… well, I have to agree with everything you say. I think there are sound logical and evidential reasons for holding to a TR/KJV point of view. That’s why I don’t make it an issue of division. I really deplore the attacks made by some against the KJO position as if it was all a monolithic mass of error. The errors of Ruckman and others are terrible and worthy of attack, but there is a reasonable, scholarly, spiritual, and perhaps even biblical rationale for a form of the KJO view.

But I hear what you are saying on the foolishness aspect of it.

BTW, I also have The Deliberate Church. I think it is a solid work, I suppose I might have some differences at some points but haven’t read the whole thing.

As for your longest post, congratulations, jump right on in, the water’s warm! Actually, quite hot at times!

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

1. Expository Preaching – I am glad that many fundamental preachers in your area actually preach the Bible, but almost everyone I know is more concerned with either finding three R’s for their outline or deciding which sermon series from Paul Chappell or Clarence Sexton they are going to preach next. Nothing has been more transforming in my life then preaching through books of the Bible. God truly uses His Word to build the church. Tragically I learned expository preaching from 2 neos: Haddon Robinson & John MacArthur. I never even saw it in practice other than a few times in college chapel until I went to work as an assistant at a church in California. Since I have committed to preaching expositionally (not every sermon, but most), I have met others. I’m not trying to say that much of the preaching I heard was not Biblical. It was that preaching that God used to save my soul & help me grow to maturity. I just heard a sermon entitled “a little farther” – it was based on Jesus leaving his disciples to go a little father and pray in the garden. The sermon had nothing to do with the text. It was a good challenge to give your all to the Lord and His work, but it wasn’t based on what the Bible actually says. This is precisely the type of sermon that I hear most IFB’s preaching. It doesn’t teach people to understand the Bible; it actually confounds their understanding by training them to look for little phrases that catch their attention and them imagine whatever they want about them. This ties into my second point…

2. Foolishness in IFB – by this I mean foolish reasoning for why we do things (even for legitimate standards). A few examples: Women and girls can wear culottes to the knee, but guys have to wear pants not just long shorts. Why? b/c OT priests wore linen breeches???? (I don’t put this in the legitimate standards category by the way). Reasons for our standards and convictions are rarely presented as the result of understanding and applying the text of Scripture. Another example of foolishness is on the KJV issue. Don, I know that you don’t want a KJV debate, and that is not my point. The point is that many IFB use stupid and unreasonable arguments to hold to the KJV only. This makes them look foolish (rightfully so). I hold to a TR/KJV only position, but is in spite of such foolishness.

Well, there you have it, not exhaustive, or even complete, but my longest comment on any blog!