Brother, there’s no reason you should or would know me. If you would like a picture, though, I’d be happy to send you one (grin). It would be a family picture, for my wife and four daughters make my ugly mug a little more bearable.

Thank you for your response, and I appreciate the length that you took to give a full answer to some of the questions. It is not my intention to overwhelm this thread with what may be a “rabbit trail,” but let me offer my response to at least one unusual perspective that you’ve given. I would be very interested to know the biblical / theological foundations that you offer in making it:

You write: “They [storying sermons] do not expose the text as much as they expose the story of the text. An expository sermon exposes the text and the Holy Spirit takes the Word of God not the story of God, to penetrate the hearer’s heart.”

You offer an unusual distinction between the story of the text and the text itself, as if the story is not the text??? You’ll need to unwrap that for me a little. Is this a new teaching of which I am unaware? I don’t think it is in any white-paper or article or journal or book that I have read. Certainly, I continue to be a learner, but that is an unusual idea. Maybe I’m not clear about what you mean. Seriously, help me with that one.

Additionally, you suggest that the Spirit takes the Word of God, not the story of God, to penetrate the heart of the hearer. The story is not the Word of God??? So, you’re saying that Luke 15 is not the Word of God??? (I know you’re not intending that conclusion, but it is what I’m reading you to suggest).

Your definition of “text” obviously is different than mine and conservative scholarship in general. Stanley Fish might agree with you. Theologically, I have great problems with your premise that the story within a passage of Scripture is not the text. Honestly, I think you would want to rethink that particular position — according to Scripture, you are wrong (that would be another gauntlet — grin).

Secondly, it is a little unusual to hear that expository preaching is “logically expanding” the theme of the passage to “show that it is a biblical doctrine.” I think most classical and traditional definitions of expository preaching have the purpose at exposing the text — not expanding the theme.

Is the point of expository preaching, then, in your definition, to show biblical doctrine through logically expanding the theme? But this can’t be done through “Storying”? Are you sure? (I’m grinning here, just so you know).

Again, my main point here is that your definition of expository preaching is somewhat unusual to me. Based upon a definition which you have developed (“borrowed with a few additions”), you now suggest that Dr. Akin is inconsistent.

Could it be that Dr. Akin is not inconsistent, but that his definition of expository preaching is more traditional than yours — that he believes perhaps that the stories of the text is as much the Word of God as Pauline epistles (again, I confess I’m pushing you a little hard on this to make the point)?

By the way, based upon a more traditional view of “text” one could very rightly preach expository sermons through “storying.” Storying may be every bit as much “text-driven” as didactic / deductive sermons that you are suggesting.

Tim, I’ll leave you with the last word if you desire. I must go on to a wedding. Thank you for allowing me to engage you on this. Again, I do not believe that you have proven Dr. Akin as inconsistent.

Using your illustration of riding a horse, I think that the horse needs some food that will help it ride more faithfully and effectively through the terrain. The horse is the SBC. CR is oats. GCR is hay. The horse needs both oats and hay.

Really, brother, thank you. Please know that my words are meant in love, and I hope that they point to truth.

Eric

Your name sounds familiar and I know that I should know you, but I am drawing a huge blank trying to place a name I am familiar with to a face.

At any rate, thank you for your interaction. Let me begin by giving you my understanding of expository preaching. Expository preaching has as the primary purpose of the sermon to reveal and expand the primary teaching of the passage under consideration. Once the primary teaching is revealed, then one logically expands the theme, demonstrating that it is a biblical doctrine by showing that it is taught in other passages in the Bible, and using logic in order to demonstrate its practical use and necessity for the hearer. This is borrowed with a few additions, but basically it is what I understand as a way we should prepare and present expository sermons. As for Storying I concede they come from the stories of Scripture and they take one through the time line of Scripture, but as for being expository sermons, I am not so sure I can make that leap. They do not expose the text as much as they expose the story of the text. An expository sermon exposes the text and the Holy Spirit takes the Word of God not the story of God, to penetrate the hearer’s heart. I am not saying that the method of Storying is not effective, I am saying that it would not be considered expository preaching. Expository preaching is text driven preaching.

As to the “slam”, I knew someone would take me to task on that. I honestly am not “slamming” Dr. Akin. I am just saying that because of some appeared inconsistency, and it could the inconsistency is on the way I am seeing things, we do not have a clear definition of what a GCR will consist. To say that we, as a convention, are in agreement as to a common Confession of Faith and guide is naive at best. One would only have to look at the past two years to tell not everyone agrees with the doctrinal guide Dr. Akin states we are all in agreement on. This is point #1 under his question; Why Should We Come Together in a GCR?

As to Dr. Akins hiring practices as to whom he chooses to hire, I support him in his decisions. But when one places themselves out in the open and calls on us to follow, then everything is open to question. Would you not agree? I mean, he is the “father” of the term Great Commission Resurgence. I am for the direction we are heading in as a convention. I am not against what we are doing. I am just trying to clearly and concisely look at a direction that wants everyone to follow. I am not willing to change horses when the horse I am riding is still perfectly capable of traversing the terrain.

As to your perusal of the blogs. I can assure you that if you are looking to any of the originators for your scholarly help you will be in the wrong place. Unless, that is, when Dr. Welty or Dr. Yarnell, or Dr. Barber choose to grace us with their presence. But hey, we do enjoy everyone that visits. Because we will discuss the issues and we will not back down from our convictions unless shown clearly from Scripture we are wrong.

Blessings,
Tim

HUH??

Tim Rogers,

I am not much of a blogger, but I do read. I appreciate much of what you share as well as your “Simon Peter” type approach at times. But, in your above example concerning expository preaching, you have made an error, in my opinion. You have suggested that “story” is not expository preaching. However, you even use the verb “exposit” to describe what “storying” is. I suggest that the inconsistency that you have uncovered is not in Dr. Akin’s comments but in your definitions.

I would very much like to hear your definition of expository preaching. It would also be helpful for you to share where you happened to get that particular definition. Also, to prove Dr. Akin’s inconsistency, you need to show how that the professor he hired does not fit the definition of expository preaching.

Just to get it rolling, some “story” sermons are expository while others are not. BTW, I do not have the skill to preach a “story” sermon, so I preach mainly “deductive / point” sermons. Some “3-point” sermons are expository while others are not. I would point you to the definition of expository (as far back as E. C. Dargan and as recent as Haddon Robinson).

If you do not do these things, then you have intentionally “slammed” Dr. Akin, for you have called him inconsistent. You have said that he calls for one thing and does another. I say that you are wrong and need to correct your statement or prove it (that’s a gauntlet — grin). Perhaps this is not the thread to tackle this issue, but if not, then integrity would demand that you take some public forum to deal with this statement that you have made. (And, “I stick by my statement” is not sufficient.)

I’m sorry to have this as my first engagement on this blog, but imprecise discussion and presentation of personal preferences as though it is absolute truth just bug me. Dave Miller has hit upon another statement of imprecision in the comment #26.

I know well many of the men who have publicly advocated GCR; namely at the convention. [[ but not so much on the blogs -- don't really use the blogs to help with my research on things dealing with Southern Baptists or life or doctrine. I rather peruse the blogs more devotionally (grin) rather than academically. ]] I personally advocate GCR.

I’m not positive about some of the underlying agenda in this discussion, but I am certain that this underlying agenda has little to do with the Great Commission or the Conservative Resurgence.

Blessings to All!!

Eric Thomas

I believe my illustration to Brother Todd serves well my statement.

Blessings,
Tim

“Lets win the world for Christ and not worry about doctrine.”

I have read way more on the GCR this week than I should have. I have yet to find anyone anywhere advocating that. Not a single person.

Can you link us to someone advocating abandoning doctrine to accomplish the Great Commission?

Unless you can, I will assume this is a red herring.

I just think you’re questions about the GCR suspect some hidden agenda… I do not believe Brother Robin sees a hidden agenda, it is just that some who are promoting a GCR say one thing, but actions do not quite go along with what is being said. For example. Dr. Akin when giving his 5 steps to accomplish a GCR states; We need a revival of authentic expository preaching that will lead us to be genuine people of the book Then he explains, Unfortunately we have a generation of preachers, good and godly men, who believe themselves to be expositors, when what they do in the pulpit betrays their confession. These are statements that I can say; Yes, Amen. But then he places on his faculty a preaching prof that is known for teaching preachers to preach a “storying” format. This format in its simplest form has for its thesis that Jesus taught in parables and we must just tell the stories and do so in story form. If I understand expository preaching correctly, when you preach parables you use that genre to exposit the text. When you deal with poetic genre you present the message in the poetic genre. Not every sermon has three points and a poem. Expository messages are text driven not story form driven. As I said, that is just one example from Dr. Akin’s paper that he promotes something and says that we must do this in order to have a clear GCR. But…

Please do not take the above illustration as a slam against Dr. Akin. I do not desire to do that. I respect him as my President as I am an alum of SEBTS.

Dr. Welty,

I have not quite finished the paper and if I had known this was the paper delivered at the Building Bridges conference, I wouldn’t have had to find the connection to the paper, I already had my notes on it. You can find the notes on his paper here

Dr. Akin ends his paper by saying; The real enemy is Satan, the world, and the flesh I could not agree more. I battle all three every day. My concern is that the GCR advocates more Let’s win the world for Christ and don’t worry about doctrine I certainly believe that God can direct us in doctrine, but I also believe we need to have clear doctrine in order to present a clear Gospel, something the GCR as outlined may express some concern for, but not an advocation of.

Blessings,
Tim