A Theory of the Homily: Against Expositional Preaching?

I.

Here is a story:

In the Middle Ages, the clergy would not let the people read the Bible, let alone hear the Bible, since the Bible (and all of the liturgy) was in Latin, a language which only clergy knew. This gave the clergy a monopoly on Church teaching, the laity themselves having to be told what the teaching of Scripture actually was, instead of hearing it for themselves. This meant that the clergy were unaccountable to teaching the true Gospel since no one could call them on it.

At the time of the Reformation, therefore, Martin Luther told the Church that they had to listen to the Bible instead of Tradition and that the people needed to hear the Bible in their own language so that they could understand the Bible and not depend on clergy to read and hear it. He, of course, was persecuted for these beliefs, but he bravely led the Church out of its captivity into the light of becoming a “biblical” Church, a “gospel” Church.

Now that story has elements of truth to it. The Roman Church herself has acknowledged a certain need for Reformation and was well aware of some aspects of these errors. It has corrected some of the noted faults. But the content of the above story is so simplistic and naive that it has to be recognized as what it is: a mythology.

In calling it a myth, of course, I don’t mean to say that it is false – only that it functions more like a fairy tale with a moral rather than as anything that would pass for the work of a modern historian. It’s a story that is told and retold, all the rough edges and details being glossed over, in order to explain or justify the practices and beliefs of a certain group or culture. In this case, it is the vague mythology of certain strands of American Protestantism.

One of the outcomes of this story is that there is a hard distinction between what is summarized as “Word” and “Sacrament.” These loosely become associated with the priorities and emphases of Protestantism and the Bible on the one hand and Roman Catholicism and its ritual practices on the other. While the reality is that neither Protestants nor Roman Catholics completely forsake one or the other, in each case, one is treated as the appendix to the other. And if this story puts Protestants on the side of the centrality of the “Word”, then a vision of faithful practice emerges which gives heightened attention to the Bible.

II.

It is within this framework that the preference for what is called “expositional” or “expository” preaching gains its coherence. The sermon (or homily or preaching or discourse or meditation) has a variety of historical shapes and functions, but in the logocentric versions of the faith, the ideal sermon is somewhat simple:

The sermon’s purpose is to explain in clear, accessible language the content of the Scriptures.

While there are a variety of suggestions about the style that will best accommodate this purpose, the conviction that the sermon exists to make the Scripture’s meaning clear is central – the expositional sermon “exposes” the meaning of the text.

The drive for clarity and comprehension fit neatly as a solution to the problem mentioned above in the story of the Medieval Church. The expositional sermon conveys not Church teaching, but Biblical teaching. The expositional sermon ensures that there is no gap between clergy and lay knowledge. The lay and the clergy are “on the same page” as it were. Much more, the purity of the teaching offered by the clear expositional sermon renders the practices and rituals of sacraments as redundant to true understanding. One need only hear and process the content of the Bible to come to faith. Indeed, “understanding” becomes a huge focal point with respect to Christian piety in this tradition.

III.

Expositional preaching is well-within the bounds of orthodox Christian practice and preaching. In many contexts, it is quite advisable and edifying to the community where such preaching is heard.

It is not, however, the only advisable style. While it has the merits of encouraging the speaker to conform their own teaching to the teaching of the Apostles, it is no sure means of that. In terms of the purposes of the Church, expositional preaching can actually distract its audience from faithful Christian practice.

IV.

When practiced as a means of conforming to the story mentioned above, as a means to overthrow the wickedness of hierarchy, as a means to convey true understanding of the truth of the Gospel that is unobscured by the evil and worldly beliefs of those who do not love the teaching of Scripture, as a means to satisfy the intellect of a man rather than his body and soul through vain sacramental practices, as a means to have the Word brought down to his level of understanding – when these understandings are the context of expositional preaching, then it is indeed a harmful practice.

It is harmful because it reinforces the incorrect belief that there are no hierarchical relations in the Church. Spiritual authority is a very real teaching in the New Testament.

It is harmful because it reinforces the incorrect belief that we can abide in the teaching of the Apostles without abiding in their koinonia (fellowship, communion). The teachings and traditions of the Apostles are passed down through the Church, however imperfectly. This means that the Creeds of the Church are not to be seen as something opposite the Scriptures, but as a means of approaching them in the fellowship of the faithful.

It is harmful because it reinforces the incorrect belief that there is a meaningful opposition between Word and Sacrament and that discipleship is primarily a matter of learning what the Bible says. The reality is that Word and Sacrament interpenetrate one another and give meaning to one another.

It is harmful because it reinforces the incorrect belief that the “real meaning” of the Bible is what makes sense to us. The reality is that Scripture is the Word of God. Any lack of clarity on its part is not a fault. Within the narrative of the Bible we find the key to the central realities of the entire universe. Should it be any wonder that some aspects of its teaching are mysterious to our understanding? Should it be any wonder that some parts of Scripture require greater efforts than others to comprehend? Should it be any wonder that some parts of Scripture are not written for our understanding, but rather for contemplation? God does not exist so that we can understand and apply his reality to our lives. He simply is, with or without us. When a theory about the homily obscures that reality, then it obscures the truth of God.

V.

Contrary to its intentions, in its desire to make clear what the Scriptures teach, expositional preaching implies that the Scriptures are not clear in what they teach. If they were clear, no exposition of the Scriptures would be necessary. It would suffice for people to simply hear a passage read and that be the end of it. The presence of a trained expert who exists in order to make clear to the people what the Scriptures actually say is a total re-enactment of the error that expositional preaching seaks to cure. It firmly reinforces a clergy-laity distinction.

Additionally, though, this practice trades one Medieval concept of clergy for a new one. The preacher, here, instead of being an expert dispenser of sacraments becomes an expert in biblical interpretation. This has an unintended consequence. Whereas, the medieval cleric’s purpose in the community was always joined to his function as an actor in an actual community, the bible teacher is abstractly divisible from his teaching. His role in the church is “content creation” and that content is fully portable and transferable outside of any particular community. The preached exposition is commodifiable in a way that the local Eucharist never can be. This should give us pause, for it (dis)locates the work of the preacher as one product among many in the marketplace of ideas and radically alters our understanding of discipleship into a disembodied practice that can be known and consumed virtually, free of any of the normal requirements of discipline and sacrifice that we see modeled in, say, Christ’s own ministry. This seems a far remove from the Reformation vision of returning to the vitality of the Early Church.

VI.

Of course, this argument runs the risk of being called a “slippery slope.” To such an accusation I would only point out two things:

1. Consider the remarkable popularity and commercial success of any number of radio, TV, or internet preachers.

2. Consider the total lack of dependence of any of those personalities on a local brick and mortar establishment.

VII.

I have already stated that expositional style preaching is at times useful as a means to present the sermon. It models for the people that the Scriptures can be slowly worked through, that care should be given to understanding its teaching, that it has real objective impact on the choices we make as disciples of Jesus.

My above caution is against making it an ideal and focal point of Christian ministry, especially couched in terms of the mythology I laid out at the beginning. I am well aware that the best intentions of those earnestly pushing for this model of preaching are aiming to prevent false teaching and idle self-help meditations that lack no substance in Scripture or the Cross. I am not convinced, however, that this model is the silver bullet that it is believed to be.