So true, so people rush the message to to ensure they hit all the points they have taken the time to outline. This is evident in many small groups where the facilitator has his lesson prepared and wants to ensure people get what He's prepared, Not necessarily what God has prepared them for. The whole purpose of a small group is interaction ( To involve the group in the discussion ), and we (myself) at times stifle the group by sticking to our prepared time limits and outlines. We have to get the audience involved and make them a co-journeyer

One of Andy's communication lessons is that messages need to have one main point that runs throughout. One major error of most communicators is trying to put too much information in one talk instead of making one talk three talks.

Right now I am working on a paper "Romans 1:3-4 is the centre of paul's christology' I find your article very true and adaptive because we have to reach the people at they point. Culture definately is at the point of each and everyone of us, because it is what we know. In essence culture forms a large part of who we are as individuals; family culture , church culture, sociatial /country culture.
Thanks a mil for that insight.

So true, so people rush the message to to ensure they hit all the points they have taken the time to outline. This is evident in many small groups where the facilitator has his lesson prepared and wants to ensure people get what He's prepared, Not necessarily what God has prepared them for. The whole purpose of a small group is interaction ( To involve the group in the discussion ), and we (myself) at times stifle the group by sticking to our prepared time limits and outlines. We have to get the audience involved and make them a co-journeyer

That was a very ingaging Blog

Thanks for sharing this Ed. I am glad you did. It was very helpful, I totally agree and try to do what Andy says, but I need to be reminded and sharpened. Looking forward to the other installments, will probably buy the book too. Thanks for recommending it.

Are Andy Stanley and his church Southern Baptist?

Thanks Ed and John for sharing and of course, Andy for dropping his wisdom bombs on us.

Fighting the urge to say as much as I can in one message is difficult for me. I think I suffer from inputitis- Trying to cram as much info into the audience as possible.

But having read Andy's book, and reminded by pieces like this, what people walk away with is more important than how much info we stuff them with.

Thanks.

Patrick - I attend Buckhead Church, a sister campus of Northpoint. We are non-denominational.

Thanks for sharing guys!

Being a part of a NPM strategic partnership, we are so fortunate to have Andy as our main communicator. His messages are so simple. People walk away every Sunday and know exactly what to do with what they have heard.

Andy's book "Communicating for Change" elaborates on his thoughts on message preparation and delivery. Great read!

Thanks, Ed, for posting this info. about Stanley's philosophy of communication. A question I have about this is the relationship between communication and preaching. Is he using those terms interchangeably?

I ask that because every preacher wants to be a good communicator, but preaching is certainly more than that, don't you think?

Thanks for this post! Andy's thoughts rung true and have struck a chord in me...as I'm sure he did with most speakers.

I'm looking forward to the other parts of it.

A good preacher must manage to be an exelente communicator.

Thanks.

Andy has really helped me a lot in my preaching. I highly recommend any of his books on communication. The only area that I differ from Andy is that I am not so worried about length and I am not sure if people are either.

Thanks for running this. I really look forward to reading over this when I have time. I appreciate Andy S. and the work he does in Atlanta. We used his teaching series, Go Fish, and it had a big impact on our congregation.

Thanks for sharing this interview, Ed. I agree with you that Andy is one of the most effective communicators around.

In my current preaching classes, I'm having students read both Haddon Robinson and Andy's "Communicating for a Change." The students are surprised to find how well those two approaches complement one another.

I'm going to use your interview as our Link of the Week in Preaching Now next week. I'll also share the interview I did with Andy that was in Preaching back in 2004; here's that link:
http://www.preaching.com/resources/features/11549441/Andy%20Stanley/

Thanks for the great work you do!
Michael

Michael,

We are honored that the editor of the great Preaching Magazine would deem us worthy to be the link of the week!

Grin.

Hope you are well and enjoying the new location.

Ed

Great post, Ed! Many thanks to you and John (and of course, Andy Stanley) for agreeing to share this valuable insight.
Looking forward to the upcoming posts.

Thanks again...

Ed,

I read Andy's book back when it came out...It was interesting but not really earth shattering. People like Calvin Miller and Eugene Lowry and Thomas Long have been saying this for years. Andy happens to have the platform because of his church.

I was lucky to have my seminary prof at NOBTS, Argile Smith, challenge me to look at these guys instead of the McArthur types...I glad he did!

Unfortunately, most people don't feel this is expository preaching and is thus not appropriate for the conservative evangelical preacher. If it doesn't sound like McArthur or Swindoll, it's not biblical. Every time someone asks me if I do expository preaching (or suppository preaching - I actually had that asked at a church in FL), I make them define that term. It's almost always points...Sad...

Love it love it love it!

Ed, here is what I remember about our time with Andy. We spent the first fifteen minutes talking about leadership and church, and Andy appeared mildly engaged. But when the conversation turned to preaching, a switch flipped on inside Andy and immediately he became much more passionate, animated, and focused.

Check back in tomorrow because we ask Andy how he engages his audience...more great stuff!!

Ill take a rifle over a shotgun any day...

I enjoy Andy's preaching style. As long as we are preaching from the text and the text itself, I don't care whether it's a single sermon or a series. Let's just not become lazy in our exegesis and interpretation which give us the proper launch pad for proper homiletics.

I haven't met Andy Stanley or read his book, so I'm in no position to discern whether his style of preaching or his book are of any value. I can say this, however based this particular post.

God crafted each one of us uniquely with His will and specific purpose in mind. When we talk about someone being a great communicator, especially in preaching, I think we must to take into consideration the fact that He gifted individuals, including great communicators, uniquely to serve Him within the body of Christ. I think that would include the "style" in which we communicate the gospel.

Andy mentions Jeff Foxworthy and how he was engaged for an hour and half. Foxworthy has the ability to communicate humor in a way that most people can relate to. He has established a niche for himself in the market that he is trying to reach. Specifically, those who regular comedy clubs.

I don't think preachers need to seek a niche like Foxworthy or worry about their "style of preaching" and whether or not it is engaging. It is not we who engage the mind of the listener, but the Holy Spirit. On the subject of the mind allow me to add this; when I preach I do not want the listener to "feel" anything. I want them to think. Journey's are great, I take one everyday as I travel through my Bible. I sometimes "feel" fantastic about what God has taught me, but when I preach the gospel my goal is to get out of the way of what only God can do. This means less "style of preaching" from me and more Scriptural accuracy from the Holy Spirit.

Stanely is my go to guy if I have some time to listen to preaching in the car.

Historically, he is leaning on Lowery and even more so, Fred Craddock. Craddock's ground breaking book, As One Without Authority, is seen all over the place in Communicating for a Change- thoughts not text, not saying he stole!!!

While the framework for preaching that he lays out is not new, but as someone said, he just has such a large platform from which to share that it is just now getting to many people.

Maybe sometime Ed, you might more about NPCC and others that are not SBC- I am finding a trend much like that in my tradition as well.

Michael,

I disagree with you that they don't need to worry about their style of preaching. Honestly, I wish more preachers would work on finding a helpful approach in their biblical communication. (And, for full disclosure, I wish some who were excellent communicators would spend more time making sure their communication is biblical.)

But, I think every pastor needs to find the right voice and approach for their communication. Tim Keller has some advice here that fits on that same theme.

And, I think this is a false dichotomy: "It is not we who engage the mind of the listener, but the Holy Spirit."

Only the Holy Spirit can convict, but as a communicator, I need to think on how to engage the mind of the listener and trust the Holy Spirit to do the most important part.

That sure seems to me that Paul did in Acts 13, 14, and 17.

Ed

Would that be the same Paul who wrote "And I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God. "
(1Cor 2:1-5)

I'm with Mr Frye in thinking that this (preaching) is another area where we are tending toward dependence upon our skill and intellect rather than acknowledging that the Power is not in us but in the Gospel.

Thanks for your thoughts and the link Ed. I will stand by what I said. Throughout the Bible we have examples of poor communicators being used by God to communicate God's message in very effective ways, because God's might and power were in the message. I believe that still rings true for today.

Funny you would refer to Acts 13, 14, and 17. Personally, I have never considered Paul's style in communicating, rather the message that was conveyed. Yes, I believe that he was an effective orator and that he was fully prepared to fulfill the mission Christ set him to. Even now when considering Paul's speaking skills, I still fall for the message that the Holy Spirit delivered through him and not the style in which in which Paul delivered it.

Here's the beautiful thing about being brothers in Christ and has absolutely nothing to do with preaching style... We can completely disagree about this, but I still love and respect you.

You do a wonderful work in Christ Ed. Keep up the good work...

Ed,

Yes, that is the same Paul. ;-)

The one who started talking to the Jews by relating Jewish history (Acts 13), the gentiles with nature (Acts 14), and the philosophers by discussing and exposing the folly of their wisdom (Acts 17).

And, answering in the way you asked, the same one who wrote 1 Corinthians 9:22-23 abut "becoming all things to all men." ;-)

But, in your last sentence, we find hearty agreement.

The power is in the gospel, but many folks (particularly those who think they don't need to), need to learn to communicate a lot better if they want to be heard.

The message is always powerful and relevant-- but I am just crazy enough to think that not all messengers are.

God bless,

Ed

Oh, my, Ed.......You don't even want to get me started on the (mis)use of
"becoming all things to all men..." !!!

:)

Again, I find myself lined up with Michael Frye--this time in appreciation of your ministry, though we don't agree on all this stuff.

God bless you!

Ed,

How do you balance what Andy is saying in this post with expository preaching?

What if your text isn't asking a question or taking you down the recommended communication path that Andy posits here?

Please don't take this as accusatory...I really want to learn how to reconcile the two.

I really desire to be the best communicator I can be but I also have a passion for being true to the text and not inserting "sermons" into the text but drawing sermons from the text that bring people to Jesus and the gospel.

-ryan

I read "Communicating for a Change" 2 years ago. I spent about 5-7 days working through it. Those 5-7 days changed my preaching for the better more in that week than anything I had been taught in the previous 12 years.

As an example: Most teens will forget what you principle you speak on in less than 2 hours. Two summers ago I spoke to a group of Middle School Students at a summer camp. I drove 1 point home for 25 minutes. A year later, with no signifigant contact with these students I went back the next summer to speak again. Curious to their ability to remember my teaching from 1 year ago I quizzed the same kids. They remembered it all.

That's when I knew it was for real.

Ryan. If I may. If you mean by "expository preaching" preaching verse-by-verse, then I think the reconciliation that you seek comes from being able to retell what the author of a particular book is communicating to "then and there" and translating that into "here and now." Therein lies the journey and is where a myriad of questions can and should arise. Taking your hearers on this journey is communicating the biblical text in a way that your hearer is engaged. 3 points and a poem simply no longer cut it.

I have learned so much from Andy regarding communication. In that regard, and in many more ways, he is gifted with a big G!

However, I am concerned that preacher types like me may be misled by this post, or at least what Andy says is his model of preaching. He says,

"Here is the model: Make people feel like they need an answer to a question. Then take them to God's Word to answer the question. And tell them why it is important to do what we just talked about. And then you close by saying, 'Wouldn't it be great if everybody did that?' And that's it."

And that's it?

Expressed that way, this model sounds a lot like moralism, and concerns me that such an influential communicator/preacher could say that. However, if he would replace "And that's it" with how our failure to just do it leads us to Jesus and the cross, then I think the model is VERY helpful (because his communication methodology is awesome). Anyway, at that point redemptively motivated and empowered application could flow from what then would be a gospel-centered sermon rather than a moralistic sermon.

I am thankful for Andy, and I want to give him the benefit of the doubt by assuming that what he said is not fully what he intended to say.

Some of your guys are rather harsh towards. We need a higher level of respect.

And I am floored at what delight some take in NOT connecting with people. Almost as if not donnecting witht eh community and culture is a spiritual gift. Weird.

Hey Geoff,
I sure hope my post didn't communicate disrespect or harshness. Since I respect Andy so much as a communicator (one of the very best!), I wanted to be sure to "communicate" that. Obviously, I am not the communicator that he is. : )

Anyway, I hope that when Christian pastor-leaders speak as authorities that they will be open to critique, so that their good contributions may be improved in the context of the community. Knowing Andy's humility, I am sure he would take critique very well- even if it is off base. If he were someone of lesser influence, I would not have posted. But when someone of Andy's caliber outlines a moralistic model of preaching, well, I guess I get concerned. However, I bet that Andy was simply stating a philosophy of "communication," and not necessarily preaching as a means to proclaim the life, death, resurrection and return of Jesus.

I'd like to emphasize that I am a fan of Andy Stanley, and have been blessed in many ways by his ministry.

Hey Ed,
I would love to have a book that brought together Andy Stanley, Erwin McManus, Bob Roberts, Mark Driscoll, Rick Warren and Tim Keller to interactively collaborate on the subjects that you had picked out. The cross-pollination would be awesome!

To Ryan:

In answer to your question about remaining true to the text (because isn't that the issue - our answers or Gods?), Andy does all the study work on the front end to see what the text is saying. Preaching has many parts two of which that need to be delineated is Exegesis (how we approach the text) and communication (how we approach the listener) both are important.

In his book Andy plainly says that many times the text says something different than he expected about a topic or an issue. That is the decision time. We can hammer it and cram it into our ideas, or we can ask why God answers the issue the way he does. Andy states that when something comes up that he didn't expect in the text that we must be fair to the text and its in those moments that God usually grows us and our listeners the most.

And I hate blogs: NO SPELL CHECKS AND I WRITE AT A HIGH SPEED WITH PASSION. Therefore I look as if I am the target of NKLB, as opposed to a few degreed fellow!

I just meant to say that I think Ed, unlike others (Rick Warren and John McA), walks a faithful balance that many of us do not. He is faithful to the Faith but will never allow that to be an excuse for the decline of the church. One extreme or the other drives me nuts.

As the token mainlier around here, I am now able to see what I have only heard about from my Fort worth says: Calvinism is finding a home in the SBC!!! Who woulda thought it!

While I appreciate Andy's emphasis on the simplicity of communicating I think he has over simplified it!

Communication is the transference of information and attitude. But it seems to me that the purpose of preaching is to stir someone toward a purposeful response. The hebrew basar and the greek kerysso and euangelizomai have to do with moving the intellect, emotions and will of individuals to respond to the good news.

Perhaps we have fallen prey to the pejorative use of the term preaching and use terms like communicate and speak to mask our embarrassment.

Ed, that was pretty interesting. I would have to say that, in spite of his popularity, Andy is treating the church like babes that cannot handle meat. People need the word of God, not cleverly crafted sermons.
What we see in the scriptures are not communicators but preachers. Simple, common men, filled with the Holy Spirit preaching and teaching. I just see no biblical model for

"Make people feel like they need an answer to a question. Then take them to God's Word to answer the question. And tell them why it is important to do what we just talked about. And then you close by saying, "Wouldn't it be great if everybody did that?"

I don't know guys. Haven't we McChurched it up enough? What about men like Jonathan Edwards who hardly looked up from his notes and droned on and on in an almost monotone voice? Tons of people came under the conviction of the Holy Spirit - NOT because he was a good communicator - but because he was teaching/preaching the Word of God in power and boldness. The church doesn't need more "good communicators." The church needs more men of God who are unashamed to exposit the Scriptures.

What a breath of fresh air, what an encouragement! I have been preaching since 1972 (at the age of 18). I and am sick and tired of hearing that a good sermon should be three points and no longer than 20 minute. My sermons go on for 45 minutes plus sometimes they engage other times they do not I am encouraged to persist on the engagement aspect. Yes you are right sometimes you should stop before you put your people to sleep or cause them to wander. Still learning, Thank you

I really have appreciated Andy Stanley's preaching when I have had the opportunity to hear it. I am fully engaged, both because of his style and his content.

However, I'm concerned about a serving a steady diet to a church based on their felt needs. While it is fun to eat our favorite foods, it may not be healthy to only eat our favorite foods. We need someone to tell us what we really need to eat to be healthy.

Believers are often only engaged by what is interesting to them and it begins with their agenda for living and life. When we cater to that in our preaching, we let man set the agenda... and perhaps it isn't altogether healthy.

Expository preaching that works through longer passages of Scripture starts with God's agenda (ideally) and helps man (believers) know what is truly in their spiritual best interest.

Expository preaching is not necessarily verse by verse preaching which is just as likely to go down the rabbit trails of man's interest as topical sermons.

I understand the point that Stanley was making about 2 hours of full engagement as Jeff Foxworthy spoke, but there is really no comparison with preaching except to say that it is communication. A comedian seeks to entertain; a preacher in the worship service of the gathered community is seeking to please God by leading the congregation to submit itself to God and his Word as an expression of worship, both in the service and in the world as they leave church.

We should seek to engage, but we need to be sure that man isn't setting the agenda for the body of sermons preached in a church, but that it is God and his Word that is doing so.

Thanks for the opportunity to add my two cents.

After reading most of these posts, I find myself wanting to leave a comment...not sure where it fits in...just a comment.
Andy has a gift, just like many people and he uses it well. His style of communicating/preaching (not fully schooled on the appropriate definitions and differences) has certainly reached me (27) and I have to say that I like the way he takes you on a "journey" and makes it where you are actually asking yourself and God questions instead of a “lecture” where you are asking yourself and God what the point really is.

I have grown up in church and have been to many. His style makes you feel comfortable and definitely if you are in the place to want to know more, you will. If you are not, you are not left feeling as if you are a horrible person, but you still walk away with something that you didn’t have before and most likely its not negative. That to me is an important part. There is a time and place for a person and perhaps that time and place was not last Sunday. Perhaps, it’s 90 Sundays from now. We hear it all the time in baptisms.
And I agree with whoever has been posting it that it is not all about who is giving the sermon, but what the message is behind it.

If you are ready, and this is your day then yes “men like Jonathan Edwards who hardly looked up from his notes and droned on and on in an almost monotone voice? Tons of people came under the conviction of the Holy Spirit - NOT because he was a good communicator - but because he was teaching/preaching the Word of God in power and boldness."
But, if you’re not ready, men like this Jonathan Edwards will either put you to sleep, tick you off, or make you laugh.

“The church doesn't need more "good communicators." But I think the church does need more “good communicators” That helps in bringing in people who normally would not choose to come to church. Some people I have talked to say that they don’t even bother going to church b/c it’s the same thing every time, or they already know they’re a “bad” person. If you’ve grown up in church and grew up believing, its easier for you to adjust to differences in churches b/c you have a foundation. But for those who will tell you they won’t go to church b/c they already know they’re a “bad” person why not entice them in a new way? We “bribe” children with incentives to be “good”. Why not “bribe” older children of God with incentives go to church? I don’t get an ice cream for every A I get anymore, but I enjoy the satisfaction of a job well done and the knowledge gained.
If you can see a light at the end of the tunnel does that not encourage you more than no light and no hope?

“The church needs more men of God who are unashamed to exposit the Scriptures”. Sometime these “men of God” scare people. You have men of God who are unashamed to walk the streets with signs screaming that everyone is going to hell.

“We should seek to engage, but we need to be sure that man isn't setting the agenda for the body of sermons preached in a church, but that it is God and his Word that is doing so”.
I agree that we should make sure that “man” does not completely take over the setting of agendas, but as for me …I’d rather hear from Andy or another good communicator than the man screaming at me telling me I’m going to hell.

Just a personal rant- Thank you for the opportunity to make me think and get some of my thoughts put together.

while I do agree with Bro. Andy on Alot of his great points....I go back in my mind to a point by the great preacher DL Moody.... I read it some where one time.....He left his topic unfinshed and so he said lets all come back next week and we will finish it all....in that week the great chicago fire happened and many within his church did not make it back the next week.....while I think we might overload on sermons and I hear what is being said I do not even think that Bro. Andy is even saying it the way some might take it....we need to be evangelist on sunday during the sermon always reaching out for the lost soul....for everybody or some body might not make it back for next weeks sermon.....if we take 20 minutes.....let us make it a golden 20 minutes for the Lords message......Amen.

One thing I did after I wrote my article that really help with this application of what Bro. Andy is saying.....I went to the North point Church we site and choose a message of Bro. Andy's and I listened for what his method and process of sermon's are.....Wow what an ear opener.....I learned so much just by doing that....God Bless Bro. Ed for his content....I love it.....keep up the good work....any thing by Andy Stanley is good stuff.....God Bless...KJC.

Acts 14:1 "At Iconium Paul and Barnabas went as usual into the Jewish synagogue. There they spoke so effectively that a great number of Jews and Gentiles believed. "

If it was all up to the Spirit and all we have to do is say the right words, then we're going to miss a tremendous number of opportunities.

The way we communicate can shut the ears of listeners or open them. The Spirit works on the heart. Man works on the ears.

Too often we confuse the two and we erase our responsibility in delivering the message or make excuses for the lack of impact that we have.

The Word is always powerful. But if it lacks impact, lets have the humility to look at ourselves and ask the hard questions. Only then will we learn and grow.

And for those of you hanging on to Edward's sermons - why don't you preach like that next Sunday. See how it goes over.

Did you ever stop to think that his sermon captured the very mood of the moment?

Martin Luther explains it best: “If we hold the Word of God in high regard, then we would be glad to go to church, to listen to the sermon and to pay attention. But if you look more at the pastor than at God; if you do not see God’s person but merely gape to see whether the pastor is learned and skilled, whether the pastor has good diction, then you do not have eyes to see the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb…. For a poor speaker may speak the Word of God just as well as he who is endowed with eloquence.” Of course, this recognition does not excuse pastors from their duty to become better preachers, trained in the art of rhetoric and public speaking. But Luther does well to remind us where a congregation’s focus should be in the midst of preaching: on God and not the pastor.