As with so many other issues in church life, a valid protest—if, in fact, Mr. Murray’s caution is that—does not presume the validity of the proposed solution. The belief accordingly remains untouched, for this writer at least, that consecutive or systematic exposition is the most effective way of declaring the whole revealed counsel of God (Acts 20:27).

When Rev. Iain H. Murray—erstwhile assistant to Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, cofounder of The Banner of Truth Trust, and admired church historian—speaks to an issue, conservative Reformed Christians understandably sit up and take notice. Not surprisingly, then, his 2010 caution pertaining to the prevalence of the consecutive exposition of Scripture has been republished more recently on popular websites, including The Aquila Report (see also this article on the same topic).

While personally indebted to Rev. Murray on a number of fronts, and sharing his belief in the significance of preaching for the health of the church, I have found it necessary to offer a response on behalf of those of us who practice consecutive or systematic exposition. My friendly rejoinder is found in Consecutive Exposition: A Weighing of Iain H. Murray’s “Time for Caution,” and balances attention to what—in my view—is both welcome and weak in Mr. Murray’s reasoning.

The focus on what is welcome—that is to say, on the kernel of truth in Mr. Murray’s caution—is essential to the constructive approach to Calvinistic dialogue so needed in our day. By itemizing and interacting with six positive aspects of Rev. Murray’s caution, I have used his shot across the bows as an occasion for the enhancement of expository preaching, where necessary. In effect, our competence as systematic expositors of God’s Word is our best defense.

The attention to that which is weak explains why and how Mr. Murray’s caution misfires. Again, six points are made. Together, they challenge his methodology and certain of his claims, and query the degree to which his comments are relevant to pulpit ministry in the present context of the Western world.

Such pros and cons lead to the following Conclusion: Mr. Murray argues—

Firstly, the wrong line. Had he simply warned against the abuse of expository preaching, that would be fair enough; for the expositor is the last person who wishes the method brought into disrepute. But to seek to influence a withdrawal from what John Stott has called “the value of systematic exposition,”[1] goes too far.

Secondly, in the wrong way. A strong case does not need the utilizing of special pleading (stacking the deck in favor of his argument), unnecessary dichotomies, at least one extraordinarily dubious claim, a perspective rooted in the modern rather than the postmodern context, and the omission of the liabilities of nonconsecutive exposition.

Thirdly, at the wrong time. If the biggest problem with preaching today were consecutive exposition poorly done or done in the wrong contexts, then Mr. Murray’s timing would be fine. But to try and scale back the popularity of consecutive exposition in a day of such Biblical illiteracy and the widespread predominance of anecdotal preaching on the one hand, and of the dangers of the inordinate elevation of confessional standards vis-à-vis Scripture in the catechetical method seems counterproductive.

Fourthly, to the wrong readership. His focus bespeaks, proverbially, a straining at the gnat and a swallowing of the camel. There is far more good than harm being done by consecutive exposition, and far more harm than good being done in wider evangelicalism by a regular diet of anecdotal preaching. Ministering at the epicenter of Dutch Reformed life in North America, I am also concerned about the drawbacks of the catechetical method. By structuring the preaching schedule, the Heidelberg Catechism tends to challenge, even if unwittingly, the supreme authoritative role of Scripture, and truncates in the process the congregant’s exposure to it. The catechetical method loses the proportionate emphases of Scripture (influencing a me-ism with its lopsided emphasis on comfort), as also Scripture’s multi-genre character. Understandably, the Heidelberg Catechism bespeaks the historic Eurocentrism of the tradition. This does not detract from the Catechism’s beauty and faithfulness, but it does admit without cover-up that the Catechism, as a human document, can never compete with the theopneustic origin and authoritative qualities of Scripture.”

Firmer in tone than the actual dissection of Mr. Murray’s counsel, these thoughts reflect the strength of conviction that consecutive expositors ought not to end the regular preaching of sermon series on Biblical books and themes.

As with so many other issues in church life, a valid protest—if, in fact, Mr. Murray’s caution is that—does not presume the validity of the proposed solution. The belief accordingly remains untouched, for this writer at least, that consecutive or systematic exposition is the most effective way of declaring the whole revealed counsel of God (Acts 20:27).

Dr. Tim J. R. Trumper is Senior Minister of Seventh Reformed Church, Grand Rapids, Michigan. His sermons are broadcast twice weekly on radio across Western Michigan and are available at www.7thref.org. Consecutive Exposition: A Weighing of Iain H. Murray’s “Time for Caution” (Grand Rapids, MI: From His Fullness, 2014) is available in both hardy copy and on Kindle through Amazon outlets.

[1] Stott, I Believe in Preaching, 315.