Why is exegetical preaching a problem?
Firstly let me say I have no problem with exegetical preaching, however there are other styles of preaching which may also be relevant.
Why couldn't a church employ both approaches?
This I think is the point, and I suspect that it has been lost.
Albion, I wonder whether the move to a 3-year cycle and a shift in preaching style are both symptoms (for want of a better word) of an underlying cause? That is, a desire to take Scripture more seriously in the liturgy? So we shift to a lectionary which deliberately covers more of Scripture, and at the same time it becomes fashionable for seminaries etc. to inculcate a more expository preaching style?
I think that is true to a point.
Could it be that some other factor is responsible?
Some of you, and I suspect
@Albion to be one of them, will be familiar with the first and second books of homilies. They are clearly not exegetical preaching, yet they take scripture very seriously. I know that is unlikely that many will find the Homilies as useful as they were in time past, for a number of reasons, including language, length of sermons, length of paragraphs, length of sentences, contemporary issues, much of what they assumed as common knowledge our people would need to ask google about.
When to was a single year of readings, it made it more difficult for preachers not to be repetitive, and so they looked for other ways to address the congregation. The three year cycle of readings has exposed our people to a much wider reach of scripture over time, and that is a good thing. In BCP Communion you got Epistle and Gospel, in the 3 year cycle you get OT, Psalm, Epistle, Gospel. Some of the reading sets in the APBA (A Prayer Book for Australia) are difficult to blend, and preachers are better not to try to harmonise them.
All I am really saying is that a three year cycle is good. Exegetical Preaching is good. However we are forgetting about the alternatives.
Occasionally I do something different - recently preached a short reflection on St. Francis Xavier and used something he wrote in a letter as the focus, rather than any Biblical text - but felt slightly guilty, like that's not what you're really supposed to do!
Apart from the notion that guilt may be a wasted emotion, I suspect you may be better to connect with the issues that people are facing. If something is happening in the world it may be as worthwhile to discuss how the Gospel impacts on that issue, even if it is not the reading for the day.
Does anyone have any thought on 'interactive' or discussion-style preaching?