The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Question on expositional sermons

My friend on another discussion board is having this debate. She said her pastor a few years back skipped over a passage regarding divorce because he and his elder board had some disagreement on what the passage is teaching. It was some passage in Mark. Later on, both came into agreement, so he went back to preach on it.

I'm of the opinion that the preacher should not skipped passages while preaching through a book in the Bible. What he should have done is to say their are different views on this, explaining each view, and he is allowed to say which is his view. But skipping over a passage until full agreement is not expositional preaching in my mind.

I know when I come across someone who has never heard of the three (or four if counting premil dispy) views on eschatology, only the premill position, I have always been under expositional preaching and my pastors will always mention the three views before telling what his view is. There are doctrine within biblical Christianity that solid Christians have different views. I think it is a disservice for someone not to be aware of those views.

I agree with you for the most part. But I am going to disagree with the definition of "expository preaching" which says that such preaching means to preach through a given section; book, chapter line by line. My view is based upon the etymology of the word which is simply to "expose" reveal the meaning of something. Thus true expository preaching is to take even a phrase (in context of course), a verse, passage, etc. and carefully give the meaning and appropriate application(s) of it. Some of the Puritans could take one verse and preach 3 or more sermons on that one text expositorily.

As to the method of preaching on a text, doctrine, etc., which is controversial, I am of the opinion that the preacher/teacher should give the meaning which he has come to embrace through diligent study. And, after doing so, mention that there are differing views held by others, some of which [i]may[/b] be worthy of consideration and why others are not worthy of consideration and should be firmly rejected.