Andy Stanley clearly is wiser, more experienced, and more successful in ministry than me. I am merely 29 at my first church and I am very green. I agree with so much of what he is saying but I disagree completely with a lot of what he is saying here.
1> First, being right isn't a given just because you are reading from the Bible. Jehovah's witness' use the Bible as do many other cults and heretics for centuries. I would say that being engaging is apart of being right. So I do appreciate his comments there.
2> Second, verse by verse is not cheating nor is it easy. To know a passage at the depth of your soul and expound on its meaning and its cultural relevance is an arduous and at times painful task.
3> Third, when you preach you should allow God to speak. Verse by verse places the emphasis on God's Words not on your pithy cultural musings. Though I might add bringing the meaning of the text in clear repeatable truth statements can be helpful.
4> When you preach exegetically you teach people how to read their Bibles. When you approach the Bible as a back-up for your point you simply tell people what to think and why.
5> This kind of preaching advocated can become manipulative and reactive rather than God centered and God exalting.
6> Preaching to felt needs is product delivery and a department store mentality. In doing so don't we neglect the power of God's authoritative word to perform surgery on the hearts of people.
7> Last , I understand that not everyone has the appetite for exegetical teaching. However, I believe that is good for the long term development and discipleship of people.
Sorry for the long post. I have plenty to learn from guys like andy stanley and their ministries. However, I simply do not agree with much of what he says above.

www.jakesnodgrass.blogspot.com

I believe Ezra modeled this as outlined in Nehemiah 8-9, but even so... to say that expositional preaching is easy and cheating makes me question the methodology of his entire ministry.

The Apostle Paul testified to the Ephesian church in his farewell address that he preached to them "the whole counsel of God" (Acts 20:27). Jesus explained his ministry on the Emmaus Road by going piece-by-piece through the OT (Luke 24:27).

And plus, did not Jesus in the Great Commission say to "Go and make disciples ... teaching them to observe ALL I have commanded you"?

I believe we have great warrant for preaching the totality of the Word in this manner, especially since the Holy Spirit (1) inspired every Word of it, (2) laid it out in that way for a particular reason.

One more thing: if Stanley's main issue is accessing "felt needs," he risks just hitting the surface on issues. A man may walk into my congregation here at Boone's Creek Baptist in Lexington saying, "My felt need is that I need to understand how to deal with my finances." That's the need he feels. Yet, by digging deep into the Word of God, what may come out is something deeper --- an area of greed, irresponsibility, or a neglect of apprehending the Gospel in general.

The Word goes past the needs we feel to the needs that are real--whether we feel them or not.

"Guys that preach verse-by-verse through books of the Bible-- that is just cheating. It's cheating because that would be easy, first of all. That isn't how you grow people."

Wow, that's harsh. Could part of his reaction to "verse-by-verse" preaching have to do with his background in the church and location in the South? When preaching to people who have grown up with the Bible, you need to help them read the Bible with fresh eyes and sometimes verse-by-verse may not be the best way to do that, but to toss it out for everyone? I'm definitely not ready to go there.

I write all of this with great respect for Andy and I acknowledge the amazing ways in which God has used him. With that being said, it seems that Andy's primary philosophy in preaching is that we as pastors must be engaging and we must be helpful. He assumes that our preaching is true because we have in some way connected it to Scripture; often by proof-texting.

This concerns me for a couple of reasons. The first reason is that simply using the Bible doesn't necessarily mean what you are preaching is true. Most destructive theology doesn't arise from one completely abandoning the truths of Scripture, instead it usually arises from one distorting those truths ever so slightly. Often it occurs when we overemphasize one teaching of the Bible to the neglect of another.

The second thing that concerns me is the idea that our primary aim in preaching is to be engaging and to be helpful. By that definition, Joel Osteen is a good as it gets when it comes to preaching. He is engaging and tens of thousands of people would argue that he is helpful. And yet Osteen purposefully neglects some of the central teachings of the Bible. I am not saying that there is no difference between Andy Stanley and Joel Osteen, but rather that Stanley's philosophy to be engaging and helpful can lead to great distortions of the Biblical gospel if we are not careful.

J.I. Packer warned against this 50 years ago when he wrote:

"There is no doubt that evangelicalism today is in a state of perplexity and unsettlement. In such matters as the practice of evangelism, the teaching of holiness, the building up of local church life, the pastor's dealing with souls and the exercise of discipline, there is evidence of widespread dissatisfaction with things as they are and or equally widespread uncertainty as to the road ahead. This is a complex phenomenon, to which many factors have contributed; but, if we go to the root of the matter, we shall find that these perplexities are all ultimately due to our having lost our grip on the biblical gospel. Without realizing it, we have during the past century bartered that gospel for a substitute product which, though it looks similar enough in points of detail, is as a whole a decidedly different thing. Hence our troubles; for the substitute product does not answer the ends for which the authentic gospel has in past days proved itself so mighty. Why?

We would suggest that the reason lies in its own character and content. It fails to make men God-centered in their thoughts and God-fearing in their hearts because this is not primarily what it is trying to do. One way of stating the difference between it and the old gospel is to say that it is too exclusively concerned to be 'helpful' to man - to bring peace, comfort, happiness, satisfaction - and too little concerned to glorify God. The old gospel was 'helpful', too - more so, indeed, than is the new - but (so to speak) incidentally, for its first concern was always to give glory to God. It was always and essentially a proclamation of divine sovereignty in mercy and judgment, a summons to bow down and worship the mighty Lord on whom man depends for all good, both in nature and in grace. Its center of reference was unambiguously God. But in the new gospel the center of reference is man. This is just to say that the old gospel was religious in a way that the new gospel is not. Whereas the chief aim of the old was to teach people to worship God, the concern of the new seems limited to making them feel better. The subject of the old gospel was God and his ways with men; the subject of the new is man and the help God gives him. There is a world of difference. The whole perspective and emphasis of gospel preaching has changed."

Thanks, Ed for being a servant to the Body by challenging us without making a personal conclusion. We don't have to agree with Stanley's thesis against the (and I take liberty to impose my own perspective of what he said) sufficiency of Scripure in preaching but he makes good points about his one-point sermon.

We try to say too much and people remember too little, esp. Greek references. :)

It is good to be challenged in our communication. The Bible is alive and powerful and transforming. Displaying that power (even while preaching in an expository manner) is our duty. I like a balanced approach of making Scripture sing loudly while I skillfully play the accompaniment in the background. If we are too clever, we get the glory and God takes 2nd place.

Ed, you serve the body well. Thanks for challenging us to be better disciple makers.

You guys are probably all out of my league, so I'll keep my opinions to myself.

I would just like to:

1) Say thanks for sharing this. I really respect and (probably) envy Andy's ability to communicate things I already know in a way that freshly challenges me. I appreciate the insight into his approach.

2) Share that, as someone who has *always* (for 20 years) gone to a verse-by-verse church, what Andy says has a ring of truth to me. It seems like we can go months where everything feels very stagnant, and it's because we're studying through a book that is part of the Scripture, but doesn't seem to be engaging the body where we are collectively. I'm sure there's a balance to it all, but what he says lines up well with my experience.

Stanley's words make a ton of sense to me.

However, I'm not going to say God can't use verse by verse exegetical preaching, because He has used that often for me.

An unbeliever's felt need is to stay entertained long enough that their screaming conscience never pierces their sin-saturated stupor. The preacher's job is to afflict the comfortable and comfort the afflicted, not meet their felt needs.

On break from my speaking...

And... I am not sure I am surprised, but I continue to be amazed at the inability of certain sectors of the church to have an attitude of learning and to glean from others.

Ed

I love Andy and appreciate what he has done for the church. I have read Communicating For A Change and to understand the statement, "Guys that preach verse-by-verse through books of the Bible-- that is just cheating. It's cheating because that would be easy, first of all. That isn't how you grow people" you need to read the book.

In the book, he praises his Dad for this type of preaching style and acknowledges that tons of people have had their lives changed through expositional preaching. The reason I believe for this statement stems from Andy's background. He basically turned from the methodologies that he had been taught at 1st Baptist Atlanta. He was very transparent in telling this story at Exponential last year.
Is he correct, I don't believe so. Many times when I preach topically, it is easy and sometimes it is not and the same goes for expositional teaching.

My thoughts.

Those of you responding negatively to the "felt need" idea might want to re-read what Andy said about it. Specifically, "Or perhaps what is more important, what is an unfelt need they need to feel that I can address? Because if they don't feel it, then they won't address it."

That's going beyond the surface-level felt needs to real needs that they need to feel so they'll do something about them.

Ed,

I don't think this is an issue of being unable to learn from others. There is much in Andy's comments that I think are helpful. And Andy is a great communicator, but his comments about expository preaching are unfortunate.

Our obedience to God comes out of a love for God. Our love for God comes out of our knowledge of God. That is simply the way it works. The more we learn of the grandeur of God the more we love him and the more we desire to serve him. Therefore, preaching His Word (all of it) helps us grow in our knowledge of him and in turn changes our hearts and changes our hands.

I think Andy's blanket statement is just that, a blanket statement. There is much to learn about the "wrongs" of expository preaching (i.e. lecturing, etc.) but to say that expository preaching is cheating or easy or does not change hearers is just plain wrong.

Living in north Atlanta, I'm familiar with Andy and his ministry. (Read into that an empty appeal to authority)...

In Andy's defense, (something I never thought I'd come to) he did not stay at "felt need" but rather did mention that what was more important than their felt needs were their unfelt needs that they ought to feel:

"Or perhaps what is more important, what is an unfelt need they need to feel that I can address?"

Even still, I think the tail is wagging the dog if we are focusing on what people need, rather than what God has revealed.

Again in his defense, one message I heard him give has stuck with me for the repetition of the phrase (and Scripture quotation) "the Most High is sovereign over the kingdoms of men and gives them to anyone he wishes" which he worked in about 982 times in 40 minutes...

Could people walk away with such a memory device every week? I don't know...

I appreciate Andy's emphasis on "helpful information"...but we must qualify what is meant by helpful... helpful to me? or helpful to the global, timeless mission of God? We can't assume their one in the same...

As others have already pointed out, you can say true things from Scripture in creative ways that help people, and still fall very short of stretching them to be involved in the redemptive purpose of God...

I think that a man-centered mindset of judging "is this helpful to them?" very much runs the risk of using religion as a stick to beat God the pinata with hopes that he will give us candy (good marriages, comfortable finances, etc.)...

Ed, you said

...I continue to be amazed at the inability of certain sectors of the church to have an attitude of learning and to glean from others.

If you mean when people say things like

Guys that preach verse-by-verse through books of the Bible-- that is just cheating. It's cheating because that would be easy, first of all. That isn't how you grow people.

I agree.

Mark

Ed,

You wrote, I continue to be amazed at the inability of certain sectors of the church to have an attitude of learning and to glean from others.

I am sure that is true, but let's back up a minute and consider the bomb Stanley dropped on those who are committed to expository preaching (those whom, I assume, within the camp you believe don't have an attitude of learning or gleaning from others).

For Stanley to come out and make such a silly statement and to expect others to remain tuned in and glean from whatever other nuggets of truth may be is not only poor provocation but ironically bad communication.

Every preacher should be careful to learn everything he can to be a better communicator, and I know there are preachers who hold to expositional preaching who are not good communicators, so there are things which Stanley says that are indeed profitable. Stanley could have approached the issue of biblical preaching from a much more helpful and profitable angle. If something is not taught, it is should not automatically be assumed that they subjects are not teachable.

One of the biggest differences I see is that Stanley has a pre-commitment to the context (felt need) where expositors have a pre-commitment to the text (Scripture). Text and context are both needed in biblical preaching, but where, how and to what degree they are applied in communicating creates more than six degrees of separation.

I have been challenged by Andy Stanley's ministry for many years, even during the days he taught with his dad.

Being a person that has spent ample time teaching stewardship classes within church and event settings I have come to the conclusion that Andy is by far the very best stewardship communicator anywhere in Christendom. If you have not listened to his many talks on stewardship I challenge you to do so. It will revolutionize the way you view your "stuff."

I don't believe that verse by verse is the only legit method of expository preaching. However, to call it cheating is absurd! To call it easy indicates that Mr. Stanley may never have done it properly. I, too, respect Andy Stanley and his leadership, but these comments are at best misleading and confusing and at worst dangerous. This is much like several years ago when he said we should abandon "shepherd" language for Jesus b/c it was irrelevant.

I am a fan of Andy Stanley, I have found his books and insights tremendously helpful to me. I think you hit it on the head Ed, he is being a little provocative with that blanket statement on verse-by-verse preaching.

I use both methods in my ministry and find that mixing it up keeps interest a little higher AND keeps me more honest. A topical series can address issues in a way that brings the bible to bear on particular areas of life and ministry. The verse-by-verse approach helps me to avoid pet peeve preaching.

I think what we need in any type of preaching is inspired creativity that engages the congregation. Either method can become stale.

I might push back by saying that

1. You still need to know culture and know Scripture to preach verse-by-verse. There might be a very good cultural reason to preach through, say, 1 John instead of 1 Samuel. In order to see that, you have to know both.

2. Sometimes preaching through books unearths a need that even I - the preacher - didn't feel or realize needed to be felt. So now I have to adjust my understanding of the human condition to square with God's. In that sense, relevant expository preaching is not easy; it's harder - not just on the preacher's skills but also on his heart and mind.

All that said, Andy is one of the best communicators in America. I learn from his preaching. But this time he's clearly, effectively, and engagingly communicating a half-truth.

I think there is room to learn something from Andy. Consider this statement:

"And it may be stuff that I really need, but if you didn't engage me, I can't stay with you. You need to be helpful and engaging."

I agree regardless if you are expositional or topical in your preaching. Poor expositional preaching is content to give information instead of engaging the truth about the Word and the truth about us.

Moving verse by verse and merely giving information is cheating. The word hasn't touched the heart of the preacher or his people.

i think that andy brings a lot to the table. his book on communication was revolutionary for me in my preaching the first time i read it. how he uses an outline is genius.

personally, i preach verse-by-verse through a book of the bible and each sermon i use stanley's 5 point outline.

i think expository and topical both lend itself to being lazy.

topical, you can make the bible say what you want. you can always preach the same topics. it is easier to preach to needs though.

with expository, you can be lazy and spend too much time in a book. i know someone who took 2 years to go through mark, that's just lazy. it is difficult to start with a felt need with expository and to show your church that they need to hear what you are about to say, but that is where the work of the preacher comes in.

i use a balance of 75% expository and 25% topical. it works for me.

i've always been pretty tired of the debate of how to preach. just preach how you feel called to preach in your church and just do that.

I am writing this as a lay-person, not having the years of seminary training.
I believe there are many different styles of preaching and teaching people learn from. Everyone is not the same. Wether the WORD is tault verse by verse or topical is not what is important. What we must be concerned about is that we ask God to bless the hearing of the WORD. I must confess that I enjoy studying the WORD verse by verse. In this way I am able to study ahead and allow GOD to speak to my heart as aposed to depending on someone else's interpretation all the time.

i put together some more thoughts on this discussion:

http://missionalthoughts.wordpress.com/2009/03/05/preaching-a-response-to-ed-stetzers-interview-with-andy-stanley/

It's hard to argue with Andy Stanley; he can always pull our the "my church is bigger than your church" card.

But are expository preaching, being engaging, raising issues, and meeting needs in any way mutually exclusive?

Don't we know people who are able to do what Stanley is talking about while working through a book of the Bible?

And, indeed, don't some people raise certain issues that need to be dealt with BECAUSE they're going through a book of the Bible?

I'm not sure, but couldn't a person fail to look at issues that need to be raised precisely because the preacher is deciding what needs to be addressed rather than allowing Scripture to direct the preaching?

Ed is correct that Andy was being intentionally provocative in his statement about expository preaching...judging from these comments, it worked. He has effectively engaged the readers.

After reading both the article and the above comments, I believe that the whole "they will be ever seeing but never perceiving and ever hearing but never understanding" idea comes in to play.

It is as if everyone couldn't wait to whip out their seminary pistols to shoot down some of the valuable bits Andy had to share.

My question: Does Andy Stanley really think that expository preaching is "easy"? NO! Seriously! He is a great man of God who God is using in extraordinary ways. LEARN FROM HIM.

So do your exposition, but don't STOP there. Open by addressing the TOPIC that is addressed in Scripture in a way that is applicable to your audience. This isn't hard. (Wait I can't say that)

What is easy is to open your Bible, crank out 3 points, throw in a joke and then preach the message.

We should study Scripture and culture and as God leads us, preach His Word with conviction and in the language that our culture speaks. No one speaks "dry-boring-outline" anymore, so speak the Gospel in "felt-needs" if it is necessary. Preach the Word is such a way that the Gospel may be HEARD!

Please, my generation is headed straight for hell at the hands of a generation of ministers who refuse to learn from those who are actually making disciples.

I think Andy lost a lot of his audience with the statement on "verse-by-verse" preaching. Which is unfortunate, because while I totally disagree with him on that one, I totally agree with him on a different point - one that many advocates of expository preaching need to hear. That just because you're telling the truth doesn't mean you're a good preacher. You have to speak a language people can understand if you want them to be convicted by the law and trust in the gospel. Sometimes we preachers are content being right, rather than being understood in the pulpit.

Expository preaching IS easy.
-You read the scripture.
-You read what someone else says about the scriptures.
-You repeat what you read to the people.
-You take credit for being smart.

AND

-You make people feel dumb for not knowing as much as you.
-You make the Scriptures out of reach for people that don't have the tools you do.
-You continue to reinforce that knowledge equals maturity.

I hesitate to weigh in here because I work at North Point and will possibly be dismissed as biased.

That being said, I have been trained in Bible college and seminary toward exegetical preaching and have been in ministry 26 years. I have been on staff here for five years.

Whatever one may conclude about Andy's perspective or provocative language, I can tell you I have never been so regularly challenged to think and live biblically as I have since coming here. My wife and I remember, my kids and son-in-law remember what is said on Sundays. If the target of our preaching is to challenge hearts to follow Christ more closely, Andy hits the bulls eye nearly every time.

Here's a different angle on this whole discussion about verse by verse exposition versus topical preaching. I once heard someone remark that people learn how to read and study their Bible by the way their pastor preaches.

Whichever approach to preaching we use, we have to be engaging. Otherwise people won't bother staying to listen to us. But how does our approach to preaching play into the spiritual formation of our congregation?

When a verse by verse guy takes a heavily academic approach, does it leave the person in the pew saying, "Wow, I really can't know the Bible unless I learn Greek and Hebrew"?

When a topical guy reveals great insights to people from various passages of Scripture, does it leave his audience saying, "Wow, I'll never be able to find the right Bible verses the way he does"?

I once heard Andy Stanley preach at North Point from Romans 8. He skipped from verse 28 "all things work for good...") straight up to verse 35 or 36 ("who shall separate us...").

When asked why by a friend afterward, he shrugged it off as something along the lines of not wanting to get into that stuff here. If it's so easy to preach verse by verse, a simple explanation would suffice, right? I mean, why get into the guts of the gospel in a sermon?

Matt Chandler and Mark Driscoll are two of the most effective communicators I know, and both of them do verse by verse preaching for 40-60 minutes at a time. John Piper comes to his congregation with more than 10 points to a sermons at times, and his communication has brought me to tears time after time. I respect Andy a great deal, and I imagine he was just making a joke. But there are many of us young guys who are wholeheartedly convinced that prayer, and scripture, and the power of the Holy Spirit are the compelling factors of effective communication. This is especially true considering how Paul was ragged as an unimpressive communicator, yet his words changed many lives. I grew up hearing the typical legalistic cheesy alliterated Southern Baptist Sermon, and as soon as someone finally started to give me the word of God passionately preached, I found that it became transforming. We cannot ignore the short rhetorically unimpressive Paul or the ragged wild John the Baptist whose preaching was moving because of the Holy Spirit. I know what Andy is rebelling against, and I feel the frustrations he feels with dry ineffective preaching, but the pendulum swings both ways. I'm not trying to bash Andy though. He's an amazing communicator, and I pray that God would give all of us humility and understanding as we approach these issues, myself most of all. Thank you Ed for putting this up. Good stuff.

One of my favorite Andy Stanley series is the one where he taught verse-by-verse through the book of Jonah. It was amazing.

Andy is famous for neat little sayings that are easy to remember but sometimes, they are sort of trite. Sorry for that, but...

Here's an example:
"All Scripture is equally inspired, but not all Scripture is equally applicable or relevant to every stage of life." This little saying from 2Tim3:16,17 contradicts Andy: "All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work."

The trick is to verse-by-verse what Andy does topically. A competent verse-by-verse teacher can do that...

I like Andy. but the "cheating" comment if made by most public people would be considered laughable at best. Just because you are effective does not always mean you are correct. And God is pretty much always correct. So, while I would never say one should ONLY preach thru books verse by verse, to demean the systematic teaching of the BIble as God gave it to us is way over the top for me.

Amazing. Stanley calls expositors of the Word of God cheaters who take the easy route and who thereby are stunting the growth of their people who sit under that form of preaching because "That isn't how you grow people."? Good grief.

I have an entire congregation that would disagree with such a demeaning comment.

My preaching is mostly expository yet there is nothing wrong with topical preaching. In fact, I would take issue with a shepherd who insisted on going line by line without deviation when he knew that his flock needed a specific subject addressed by him from the pulpit.

Both methods are acceptable but the either/or distinctions are really both/and.

I like what Mike Teston said...even though he is biased :).

The proof is in the puddin. Did the sermon build faith in the hearers? The goal is to build faith in the hearers...not to be a success at the "right" method. The emphasis should be on the outcome, not the method.

I seek to preach expository sermons every Sunday. I have read Andy's book and it was wonderful. I have no problem with his approach even though it is not my own. I do not agree with everything he said in his interview with Ed, but I have learned so much from Andy.

Not sure we could prove that one method of preaching is more successful at building faith than another. It is a bit subjective to measure.

I will continue to preach expository sermons because I am just not smart enough to preach like Andy. But, I am going to continue to learn from Andy and people like him. I am certinly not going to pitch a fit when he criticizes my method of preaching.

Driscoll and Chandler -- both of whom I LOVE all out of proportion -- don't really do verse by verse preaching. I don't know anyone "big" who really does, except maybe Piper.

That aside, I look at Luke 24:27 and it sure seems like that describes Jesus rocking some serious expository preaching, if not verse by verse, at least section by section through the whle Scriptures, proclaiming himself.

There's just one example. And it's Jesus. So, you know, a pretty good one, I think.

May I address this from another perspective, that of the person Andy and you preach to each Sunday?

I grew up around topical preaching. I never even heard of verse-by-verse until I discovered Calvary Chapel in my late 20s.

Once I heard Skip Heitizg teach verse-by-verse, I couldn't get enough of it. I quickly discovered the other top pastors in the Calvary movement, and their emphasis on teaching the Bible verse-by-verse was revolutionary to me, so radically different from what I had heard from the pulpit.

Since then I have come to appreciate the expository preaching/teaching of not only the men in the Calvary movement, but from the Reformed/Calvinist part of the body, particularly men like John MacArthur and Alistair Begg, and such Acts29 pastors as Mark Driscoll, Matt Chandler, Darrin Patrick and Daniel Montgomery.

All this to say that, through verse-by-verse teaching, I have learned more about the Bible than I ever did through topical preaching. Expository teaching reminds us that all of Scripture is important, not just the gospels or Paul's letters or Revelation.

Teaching on marriage and how to get out of debt is great; learning about the books of the Bible is even better. I respect Andy Stanley, but I think he fumbled the ball on this one.

This can really become a vain disputation, I think.

I don't agree with Stanley, but it's not because I'm against topical preaching. I do it myself. As well as verse by verse. As well as narrative-expository. Depends on the message, the series, the crowd.

If topical preaching is out, so is systematic theology.

Can we all agree that whatever homiletic style we choose, our common denominators should be correct explication of Scripture and centering on the gospel?

We've probably all heard both expository preaching and topical preaching with 0% gospel.

Amazing. Stanley calls expositors of the Word of God cheaters who take the easy route and who thereby are stunting the growth of their people who sit under that form of preaching because "That isn't how you grow people."? Good grief.

I have an entire congregation that would disagree with such a demeaning comment.

My preaching is mostly expository yet there is nothing wrong with topical preaching. In fact, I would take issue with a shepherd who insisted on going line by line without deviation when he knew that his flock needed a specific subject addressed by him from the pulpit.

Both methods are acceptable but the either/or distinctions are really both/and.

Our church plant just launched a few months ago, and I'm preaching verse-by-verse through Luke to start off. It's not easy, especially if I remain committed to point to Jesus and the gospel in every single message I preach. It's easier right now to teach his actual words than when I eventually teach Christ from Ezekiel (sometime around 2027, I'm guessing), but I feel that it's the exact opposite of cheating when I teach the text, not the mood or genre or climate of my culture. As a 5 month old plant we have all kinds of unusual folks drop by with some crazy baggage, and I've already had one new age guy openly mock me while I preached. If I tried to meet the "felt needs" of my church I would need medication.

On so many levels I think it's much tougher to preach verse-by-verse because I trust that the Holy Spirit will meet people's unfelt needs, issues that they don't even know about yet. Barring a miraculous intervention by the Almighty, my community will continue to idolize money and entitlement and accomplishments for the rest of my pulpit life - that doesn't mean I should preach from James for the next 4 decades. It seems like at least one person each week says something about how they had never realized they had an attitude, prejudice or dysfunction that came to light during the preaching. What could be more beautiful than looking back on your preaching and realizing that the Lord accomplished something amazing in someone's life that had nothing to do with my 5 point sermon?

A comment way up above mine said something about being too clever and giving God 2nd place; that would be a perfect example of how I could fail as a preacher. I've got nothing against topical preaching, and I plan on mixing some in these next few months, but I'm looking forward to how much easier that will be for me. The trick for me is to not get too clever.

I'll throw some wrenches in here:

I think kc addressed the ease of expository preaching well. Probably more direct than I would have though :)

bryonm - Your example of Andy being trite was confusing. You quoted 2 Tim 3:16 saying it contradicted Andy's point that all scripture isn't EQUALLY applicable or relevant, yet 2 Tim 3:16 says nothing about the equality of scripture in terms of applicability or relevance - only the fact that it is all of those things mentioned. In other words, it doesn't say that all scripture is EQUALLY profitable for teaching, rebuking, etc...

Unless I missed it (totally possible), only Matthew Perry addressed Andy's claim that no one in Scripture modeled that type of teaching. Kudos to Matthew for that, but I think you assumed too much in your examples to make them support your position. In Acts 20:27, Paul didn't mean he taught verse-by-verse through the OT. He meant that he taught God's will, God's plan & purpose. (“will” or “purpose” is probably a better translation than “counsel” for boule)

As for Luke 24:27, Jesus said he explained what was said concerning HIMSELF. In a very indirect way you can claim that all Scripture was about him (very loose argument) but even then, can you really claim Jesus taught them verse-by-verse the entire OT? Doubtful. He knew their need (unfelt), made them feel it (v25-26), and preached on it.

Something tells me Jesus couldn't have taught them the entire OT verse by verse in 7 miles.

And that is the point that may be missed in all this. I don't think Andy is against preaching verse by verse at times. I think he is against the idea of one's preaching plan being to start in Gen 1:1 and work through the whole Bible, and then start over again. That is definitely not modeled in the Bible. If it were, why didn't Jesus just do that instead of using the verses that were relevant to the situation?

I've read every comment on here, and I think many of you are missing the point. For the record - I listen to Piper, Chandler, and Driscoll almost every week (I mention them because they are the ones getting mentioned here). I've also read every word of Andy's book on communication, and listened to him speak extenxively on this subject.

Andy is in no way slamming what those guys do. And, what those guys do week after week reinforces the real heart behind what Andy is really saying.

Driscoll, Piper, Chandler, and Stanley all preach to needs. It may not be a felt need when they start, but by the time they have finished they have engaged the listener and taken what was an unfelt need and made it a felt need (a transforming truth from the text). The goal for all of these guys is never just to 'cover the material', but rather 'life change' is the goal.

Andy's dig is at guys who go through the motions and are content just to have covered the material. That's what he is saying is cheating.

If all you do is read the snapshot of Andy's thoughts on communication posted here... you may miss the big picture of what he is really saying. That would be a shame, because he has some things to say that could help many pastors in their communication... whether they do it verse-by-verse or topically.

Thanks, Brad, for that helpful input.

I would direct people to this insightful article on why to preach expositionally from a professor at Talbot Seminary:

http://talbot.edu/faculty/sundoulos/archive/07_fall/secondfeature/

I especially like this reason he gives for expositional preaching:

I’m not that holy
Sin is the best-proved doctrine of the Christian faith. I see it in my culture. I see it in myself. I am convinced that every part of my being has been warped by sin; including my ability to select sermon topics for my people. I am convinced that left on my own I would do nothing but ride around on my favorite hobbyhorses. I can think of no more effective way to transform God’s people into my image rather than His. Preaching books of the Bible helps keep me make sure that God’s agenda is accomplished in the lives of my people. Not mine.

"For Christ did not send me to baptize but to preach the gospel, and not with words of eloquent wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power." (1 Cor. 1:17)

Most great communicators are not great preachers. Great communicators are usually those you try to use words of eloquent wisdom, thinking that that is what persuades people to the gospel. But "the natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor. 2:14).

A great preacher understands that the power of the gospel is not in eloquent words, but in CHRIST. It is the Holy Spirit who convicts. It is CHRIST who needs to be proclaimed in all His glory. Only then the Holy Spirit can do His work (John 16:13-14). This requires no eloquent words or great communication, but a humble submission to the authority of the Word.

Let the Word speak for itself, it doesn't need you for any additional "power"

Just my 2cts

Goes to show that for some, being relevant is so important that being Biblical takes a backseat. At 18, I've come to realise that relevant sermons do NOTHING for me - only Biblical ones do.

The Word of God is like fuel for a Ferrari - Christians need to fill up on it all the time. In the sermon, at the home Bible study, anywhere possible!

Also, it assumes that people who sit and listen to exposition are lazy and unable to train themselves in how to handle Scripture for themselves. Big assumptions being made, which frankly are baseless.

We may not do the MacArthur model of exposition but surely we ought to be faithful in our proclamation of the Biblical text.

Nick wrote:
can you really claim Jesus taught them verse-by-verse the entire OT?

No, and I didn't.

But Luke 24:27 does say:
And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he explained to them what was said in all the Scriptures concerning himself.

The phrase "and beginning with Moses and all the Prophets" indicates he's starting some place in Scripture and then proceeding through "all the Scriptures" explaining what was said in them all about himself. In one long walk.

Looks something like expository.

But, again, I'm not saying expository trumps topical. Just saying I disagree that expository isn't in the Bible. For that example and others.

Ed,

You were oh so right in saying, "Also, we asked about a hot-button topic, verse-by-verse preaching...And, in his answer to our question on the subject, he was (I think) being intentionally provocative."

I don't agree with Andy Stanley on this topic. After your last post I thought to myself maybe I'm missing something here, so I went to Northpoint's website and listened to two of Andy's "sermons". They were very engaging indeed.

Andy has style. I was comfortable in listening to them and found myself fascinated by the stories he told around the Biblical choices that he made for the sermons. No doubt, his methods in speaking are excellent.

However, I did hear things that concerned me. Those things revolved around assumptive statements stated as fact. The problem I have with this is that he did not declare them to be assumptions. My assumption is that these things I heard stated as fact, that were not Scripturally fact, wiggled their way in, because of Andy's methods in preaching, which are "non-expositional". Allow me to say this, I do not doubt Stanley's veracity and dedication to God's word, or his heartfelt willingness in serving those who he serves.

Verse-by-verse exposition of the Bible in preaching is crucial to keeping the facts the facts. I realize proponents of Andy's methods may say that this fact by fact method of preaching is not engaging. I beg to differ.

I recently preached at a church where the past method of preaching was of the story telling/topical form. After the sermon I was literally surrounded by individuals who made statements like, "Finally, we have someone who teaches what's in the Bible." "I like the fact that you preach on one verse, help us understand what it means, and then go on to the next." "I haven't heard the gospel preached in a long time."

The last one really floored me. This amazed me. People in churches are starved for the gospel? Why? Maybe the answer resides in the fact that people are hearing stories about the Bible, but not actually participating in understanding the Bible. I think that's the danger in moving away from exposition.

On another note: I think Stephen's sermon in Acts 7 was a Scriptural exposition (not verse-by-verse), so there are examples in the Bible of this form of preaching. Maybe his statement in answer to your question is an assumption that Stanley makes?

The source of the preached word is not the pious Christian experience or consciousness of the preachers, nor the need of the hour of the congregation, nor the desire to improve and influence others. The relevant is not where the present age announces its claims before Christ, but where the present age stands before the claims of Christ. The Scripture is intended to be interpreted through proclamation in order that it might go forth into the life of the congregation. The preacher is only its servant and helper. He does not bring it into the pulpit for his own use; he allows himself to be used by it for the congregation. I must refuse to indulge in tricks and techniques, both the emotional ones and the rhetorical ones. I must not become pedantic and schoolmasterish, nor begging, entreating, urging. I do not try to make the sermon into a work of art. I do not become unctuous and self-centered or loud and boastful. By forsaking my personal ambitions I accompany the text along its own way into the congregation and thus remain natural, balanced, compassionate, and factual. This permits the Word's almost magnetic relationship to its congregation. I do not give life to it, but it gives life to me and to the congregation. The movement of the Word to its congregation is accomplished through the interpretation of it.

http://www.workingpreacher.org/theologypreaching.aspx?article_id=128

What's concerning for me reading the interview is the story that Andy used. Great, a kid remembered a jingle-type phrase he came up with, but what about remembering God's Word? It seemed to just emphasize the danger of preaching from a purely topical perspective - both in what people retain and the person who said it (ie. our words over God's).

Flaw-finding is not good feedback. I celebrate the unique way that Andy communicates the gospel. The Kingdom needs the spice.

Face it, there is no biblical mandate (is there even a suggestion?) on the necessary form of preaching.

Based solely on Ed's blog post, I think the question Andy wants us to consider is, "Is my preaching engaging and helpful?" If you do that through exposition, then I'm pretty sure Andy would be A-OK with that.

First - One thing I think every one should do is critique his own preaching through lenses outside of his own communication set. For those "verse by verse or your a heretic" people out there - Andy offers you a chance to do this.

Secondly - we should be slow to use humility and "simply being a servant of the Word" as a claim for our style of preaching. It is a condition of the heart not a methodology.

Third - God has chosen live in people. Obviously the Holy Spirit could just do all the work the church does without us and way better than us, but for some reason God has chosen to use broken pots.

Fourth - it is my opinion that the individuals of this world put us to shame in their discipline that they put into God given talents. Humility is no excuse for poor communication. God is not boring. Neither is the Bible. One of the biggest disservices we can do is make it this way.

Thanks Ed for keeping us teachable

"Looks something like expository." - Jared

Jared, I would agree if by expository we mean "expounding on scripture". But, by that definition I would say Andy's style and verse-by-verse both fit.

We can probably agree that Jesus didn't go verse-by-verse, but rather just explained the prophetic portions pointing to him. To me, that's adressing a need with scripture. They had a NEED to see Jesus in the OT.

I think we're mostly arguing extremes though. Expositional preaching isn't an excuse for not being a gifted preacher and topical preaching is not an excuse to use the Bible to say what you want.

Great stuff from Andy, and thanks Ed, for sharing it. I tend to find myself in the middle of what I have read in the comments to this post.

I generally preach series of messages focused on topics. The messages themselves are generally exegetical from a particular passage, with support from other like passages.

I see this as applying God's Word to where people are, but allowing God's Word to speak to their need and not me.

I also very much agree with Andy's philosophy of being engaging and meaningful, then shutting up. Get the bullet across, and then back off. I think this, more then preaching through books or not, is most preachers' main problem. (grin)

I remember watching Andy preach at FBC, Atlanta on television back in the day. We cannot be too far apart in age. Personally, I thought he "preached" his father under the table - if a person can use that phrase about one preacher in reference to another. I am sure I have been preached under the table.

Over the years, Andy's style has morphed. I imagine anyone who has preached for any length of time has learned more of who he is and how he communicates and hopes to live into that in a way that is faithful to the Scriptures and understandable to the given congregational context.

Phillips Brooks, who wrote "O Little Town of Bethlehem" and a fine book on preaching," noted that "preaching is truth communicated through personality." The most freeing thing for a person may be not to do their own impersonation of Mark Driscoll, John Piper, Matt Chandler or in this case Charles Stanley. Maybe the most faithful thing to do is to preach out of the depths of who God made you to be and where he placed you.

Could be Andy is doing just that.

I confess. I have not read anything Andy has ever written. But, it is nice to follow his journey realizing the very notion of moving forward in faith is demonstrated in his very own methodology for preaching.

Maybe were we more pliable to the ongoing movement in our own lives and the transformative work of the Spirit we might find ourselves with a greater sense of appreciation for everyone who preaches in season/out of season.

Here, here Ed - let's do learn from everyone. How about a piece or two from someone you find solid that does not pastor a mega?

maybe Andy misspoke- maybe his gift isn't communication :-)

Terrific Ed! Thanks for the blog and I will be following. My good friend Michael Stover twittered me with the link. It was engaging (both parts) and refreshing.

I have heard Andy many times and I am always fascinated at how he can bring biblical truth and relevant application together. And while he doesn't do it the "old gospel way" as one brother said, I think he teaches the old Gospel truth packaged in new wineskins to reach a non-relevant generation with a very relevant message.

Go Ed and go Andy!

If you take Andy to task over his comments on verse by verse preaching, it is a sure sign you've never heard 5 of his sermons. (5 to have a good sample)

He uses the text accurately, in context, and with historical, lexical and cultural hermenutics.

I've listened to hundreds of sermons by everyone from MacArthur to Stanley. He uses the text, usually just one passage, as well as anyone.

Allow me to quote Matt Chandler.

"I don't have a problem with topical preaching... as long as it's expository."

Stanley is a fantastic communicator, especially for the younger crowds. He tells great stories, he is funny, he is charismatic and he certainly engages you for the full 20 minute sermonette.

My concern with Andy is that the bigger and more weighty areas of doctrine are swept under the carpet. I heard a sermon one time when he preached through Romans 8:26-30 or so. When he got to verse 29 he simply read it and said "That just means God has something good for you." and moved on hoping no calvinist's were listening.

I respect Andy for his communication ability, but the sermons are very shallow theologically. I feel they are trite in comparison to the weightiness of a Piper sermon or even Driscoll.

Mars Hill/Driscoll on preaching:
"Therefore, how to preach the Word‖ methodologically includes many faithful options that I have used and will continue to use according to what best serves the principle that I faithfully preach the Word. These methods include expository preaching, textual preaching, and topical preaching."

"Planning a Mars Hill Sermon Series": http://theresurgence.com/MHC_sermon_series_battle_plan

If you think Jesus taught verse by verse through the entire Old Testament during his walk, that was a long walk indeed.

"Was the presentation engaging?"
I get kinda lost right after this language.
...Were the chairs comfortable?
...Was the worship Excellent?
...Were there any distracting odors?
...Was the coffee hot enough? (what brand was it?)
That is a consumer mentality.

So much depends on the personality of the "communicator" rather than on the Holy Spirit. I am not trying to nit-pic, but Andy does not mention the Holy Spirit once. Just his method.

Also... "So how can I make them feel an unfelt need and then make them feel like they need to do something about it?"
Is that the job of the Pastor/Teacher?

Wow. Did you see that?

A whole litany of comments addressing one point and missing the tremendous wealth of information from a truly annointed man of God.

What a great line of posts...perhaps the comments will begin to pick up.

Thank you Dr. Stetzer for keeping an old dog young with inspiration from others!

You are the Church!
R.A.

"All Scripture is equally inspired, but not all Scripture is equally applicable or relevant to every stage of life. My challenge is to read culture and to read an audience and ask: What is the felt need? Or perhaps what is more important, what is an unfelt need they need to feel that I can address? Because if they don't feel it, then they won't address it."

Wow. Uh, is anyone else uncomfortable with this paragraph (among others)? This is not what Scripture says about itself. Scripture testifies that because it is inspired that is always useful to teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness. Maybe if Andy studied it more to teach it he would know that.

As for our delivery and addressing felt needs - I think of the rich man crying out to Lazarus and Abraham. "Go back and tell my brothers...warn them!" Basically "give them a huge, supernatural show, something engaging like a dead person delivering the message!" Abraham's response is telling - "They have the Law of Moses and the Prophets (the WORD), let them listen to them...." Even if the dead raised (and Jesus was getting ready to) but they aren't listening to the Word, it doesn't matter.

Can we please return to the Scriptures, Church?

I like Andy Stanley. I've enjoyed some of his teaching. However, I disagree with the
"pick and peck method" of preaching. What I mean is that if you preach based on current events or a sense of current issues in poeple's lives there is a tendency to avoid the hard parts of Scripture. For example, today I preached on "You shall not murder" (Ex. 20:13) during a series on the Ten Commandments. During the message I addressed issues like abortion, suicide, just war, and capital punishment. I know that Andy says that's too broad in scope, but I also know that the people in our congregation need good teaching (and application) on all of these topics. I just don't think those kinds of topics would be addressed if I wasn't preaching through the Ten Commandments as a whole in verse by verse fashion. My tendency, and I think human nature, would be to avoid those kinds of difficult topics. So, choosing a section of Scripture forces me as a preacher to stick with the hard job of preaching "the whole counsel of God." I realize that by virtue of what section of Scripture you choose to preach on you can still avoid hard topics, but there is less of a tendency to do so when you preach on various books of the Bible.

Assuming that people in the South (even those who have grown up in an evangelical or Southern Baptist church) have actually read the Bible is a very big assumption indeed.

My harshest comment is that there is no "Andy Stanley On Communication, Pt.3" - love the passion that Andy brings to the ministry. Thanks Ed!

I love Andy and his preaching---but as you can tell from other posts--he went way out on a limb and cut it off when he made those neg commments about verse by verse preaching. Having preached and been a student of preaching for over 20 years --- I have come to believe we have to be very careful when we make sweeping statements and try to catagorzie preaching styles and methods. It doesn't work well---because you can never be sure what method termonology means to differant people. I have heard so-called "exegetical preaching" that is dead-- I have also heard "exegetical preaching" that is very alive and engaging. On the other hand, I have also heard preachers kill the text and bore the congregation using Andy's approach. Its not the style or method that counts, its the skill of communication.

SO...... Andy, being the good communicator that you are, my advice is don't try to put preaching styles in a communication box --- there isn't a box big enough and your words are simply labels that mean differant things to differant people.

Andy's blog is a challenge. I love verse by verse preaching and I love Andy's style.

Whatever works, just make sure to be biblical.

It seems that Andy Stanley has forgotten that it's the Holy Spirit Who is the teacher and that He is able to break up verse by verse teaching as well as were the fishes and the loaves, and feed each person to his or her level of need and relevance at the moment. No pastor can know and teach to every need of each individual in a congregation.

Topical teaching is fine, but teaching verse by verse ensures the whole of scripture is taught with balance of all points.

Did I really just read several people write that Andy Stanley has forgotten the Holy Spirit? Are you Kidding? What is it that you think pricks the hearts of people, including me, many times when we hear the Bible in a practical way like that? I love the one point sermons. Those have done more good in my life in the past 8 years that the 10,000 sermons of the previous 22. I can rattle off a hundred one-liners from that kind of teaching that have come to mind right when I needed them to. So, Come back next week and read part 3! I bet it will be a simple point that we can all learn from. :-)

Preach on!

How is teaching the whole council of God - cheating?

As a youth pastor who has to deal with the incredibly short - and ever shortening - attention span of teens and most adults, I appreciate Andy's advice about focusing on "one point" of application rather than talk about a bunch of steps that most people walk away forgetting. It's helped discipline me in my use of time, and its helped me to be more intentional about presenting biblical truth that - I know - will help my students "flesh out" their faith every day.

ON THE OTHER HAND, I have come to appreciate expository preaching because I've discovered that it has actually helped many of students to approach personal bible study, not just from a topical point of view, but from a "what does God want to say to me today?" perspective. When my students pick up their Bibles to read, they're learning to prayerfully think through the context of the writings, the condition of the audience, the author's point, suggested application, and how it relates to their present situation.

In my experience, Expository preaching is not easy. It takes a lot of time and effort to prayerfully look at the Word from the author's perspective, and to identify its relevance to your audience today. Needless to say, I've embraced this practice of preaching, and I find God at work in the hearts of His young people.

There will always be different ways of communicating the Word of God.

However, I don't think knocking one way in favour of another is advantageous to the Kingdom of God.

We must accept that some people like motivational speakers whereas others like expositional speakers.

By the way, I have never found expositional preaching easy (verse by verse). However, I have found it most enjoyable.

andy is amazing to see how GOD has richly blessed you with such knowledge.

like Elijah mentored Elisha, i desire to be mentored by you.
I desire to be used by God through anoited men like you to influence my Generation.

may the God Almighty bless you and increase you.

I know I personally have a knee-jerk reaction to the comment about verse-by-verse preaching being cheating. But experience tells me that it is oversimplified language on Andy's part for a very complex problem. While I do not necessarily agree with Andy's conclusions to be primarily driven by (1) being engaging and (2) being helpful, I think he is still making an relevant observation about a great deal of evangelical preaching. I have in my short life (40 years) sat under many preachers who went "verse-by-verse" and not only completely missed the point of the passage, but often grossly distorted it. There is a frame of mind out there that if I just clutch the text, I will then be biblical and relevant. Unfortunately that is rarely ever the case.

Understanding and preaching the ancient text requires proficient skill with which to handle it, as well as cultural sensibility to be able to delver its message in a relevant way. Unfortunately I think evangelicalism is in a dearth in this respect. Even some of the most popular preachers today underwhelm me with their skill with the text.

So I think on the one hand, Andy is raising a very relevant concern that we should all sit up and take note of. On the other, I do not think he has pointed us to the way out of it.

As far there being no examples of expositional preaching in the Bible, that is just a straw man. There does not need to be an explicit example in the Bible for it to be effective and right. In fact, This statement by Andy is a similar proof-texting type use of the text that he disagrees with.

Andy also confuses method with delivery. Paul told Timothy to give attention to "reading, exhortation, to doctrine," This of course was already the pattern of the Synagogue that also moved verse-by-verse and section-by-section on a cycle. It is the only a matter of delivery whether someone reads the whole text first and then expounds it, or if they read and expound in sections. At the end of the day, both forms of delivery have to be judged by their fidelity to the original meaning of the text and how that builds the church today. So in summary, I think Andy is confusing exegesis and delivery by his comment, as are some of the other comments here.