These three planes of the triangle that will serve us in classifying Evangelical preaching. Our three representative schools, then, are: the Exposition School, the Application School and the Communication School. Already certain objections might be forming in your minds. “Do not all Evangelical preachers recognize the importance of all three of these?” The obvious answer is, “Yes, of course.” The difference comes in emphasis. This is not to say that members of one school only give lip service to the other two aspects, but that they have seen fit to emphasize one of the three in particular to address what they feel is the pressing need in preaching today. An explanation of each of the schools is needed.

The Exposition School

Advertisement

Due to our Evangelical commitment to Scripture, biblical exposition should and does figure prominently in our approach to preaching. So how is it that this commitment to exposition is relegated to only one of the schools? First, since we are identifying each school by emphasis, obviously this is not the only school to hold strongly to biblical authority. These preachers, however, see the commitment to biblical exposition as the urgent emphasis for our times. Second, these preachers do not ignore the other planes of communication and application, but these two do tend to receive less attention in relation to the need for a clear exposition of the biblical text. With mounting levels of biblical illiteracy, both inside and outside the church, it is hard to downplay the need for solid biblical exposition. With the best of intentions, this school goes about the task of bringing a clear word from God through the process of careful exegesis and an unflagging commitment to the authority of Scripture. Some of the members of this school are among the best known of our Bible teachers and preachers. Widespread readership of their books and blogs attest to their impact and to the hunger among many for what these expositors have to say.

As can be the case in other dimensions of life, a strength can also be a potential weakness if not balanced against other related concerns. If we feel our primary task as preachers is to correctly explain the biblical text, we may inadvertently encourage a culture of listening without doing — a purely cerebral faith. It may also be possible to emphasize the meaning of a particular text at the expense of the overall biblical story of redemption. When we consider the explanation of the text to be our primary task, application may then be equated either with exhortation/admonition or considered to be the sole province of the Holy Spirit. While the former can indeed be an integral part of preaching a text, not every text is hortatory. We may fall prey to a subtle moralism in our preaching. The latter is, of course, true in what it affirms (preaching, in the end, is a ‘God-thing’), but begs the question of the preacher’s role in the conversation. It is also possible that we hold our views with such passion that we too quickly dismiss or disparage the perspectives of others, even other Evangelicals.