Ed, you are right on. I am a verse-by-verse preacher most of the time, but not exclusively. And I listen weekly to Andy Stanley and other guys such as Johnny Hunt who's style is totally different. But both are men of God from whom I can learn!

Ed,

Well said. Very well said. What I loved about Communicating for a Change is his focus on digging for that one truth in the text. I am guilty of just "settling" for what the text "teaches", that offers up nothing in regards to life transformation.

We would all do well to read Celebration of Discipline each year and ask if our preaching is moving people towards these habits of life change. It is odd, but when I listen to Andy (often) I find myself really hearing a cool and suburban Richard Foster and Dallas Willard- both of whom are like me- not cool. It teaches the Christ filled life.

But as a mainline Christian with an evangelical theology, I still can not get over the pride people feel on this site in how "sacred" their form is. We preach to change lives and reach the lost. The form just seems so secondary.

What is sad is how much these Reformed folks sound like my mainline brothers and sisters: thier irrelevancy is a badge of honor. The less they learn from those who do it well the more faithful they are. Trust me: YOU DO NOT WANT THIS TO TAKE OVER YOUR CHURCH and we have the numbers to show it.

A previous post debated if Evangelicalism is heading the way of the Mainline Church- decling and sidelined. As a mainliner who listend to people wonder where were were all going and why we were all in this handbasket, I think the answer is cleary yes. The language is different but the attitude is not. It reminds me of an old hymn "If Men Go to Hell Who Cares." WELL I CARE! So I try to break the cement of my habits for the sake of the lost.

Great site. Keep up the great work Ed. This is a gift.

Many of Andy's points are thought provoking. Preachers should seek to engage the audience and I think many of his pointers on communication are excellent. Being at seminary, I know of many future preachers who do not worry about how they communicate and act as if their only job is to know good theology. We must seek to be good theologians and good communicators.

Unfortunately, because of the medium of the blog, I can only take Andy's comment as what it actually was - "Guys that preach verse-by-verse through books of the Bible-- that is just cheating." He didn't say they are prone to laziness or can sometimes be cheating. I thought Andy's words were needlessly provocative, if we could hear his tone, or maybe have a personal relationship with him, we could understand his comment better.

You give some excellent reasons for why verse-by-verse preaching is a preferred way to preach, but let me add one. It shows the congregants how to glean the text themselves. If you show them how you grapple with the text, then you wean them away from needing a communicator and towards the Bible itself.

Ed. Thanks. I was told by a wise man once, "When a leader stops learning they stop leading." And do we really learn only from those we agree with? Maybe the opposite is true. My prayer is that when I, Andy, you, or anyone else takes on the God-given task of communicating eternal truth they will do so in such a way that their hearers will be engaged not only with the person, but also the text - a sort of continual conversation. For example. I my own preaching, you will never hear me say the words, "In the Greek" or "In the original language" even though I consistently do the translation and grammatical work in order to understand a particular author's intent and work hard to communicate that intent in a relevant and real way which is the other side of the exegetical coin - knowing your audience. I have sat and listened to way too many sermons where this kind of language was used and watched people tune out and I doubt they examined the text for themselves because it seems unapproachable to them. Then we wonder why church going Christians do not have a biblical worldview.

Great post Ed! I am afraid that there are many within our beloved SBC denomination who believe that there is only one way to accomplish many things and their one way is the only way and if you disagree - take a hike!
We seem to have lost the "cooperative spirit" of our beloved "cooperative program". And maybe that is the reason why Andy and so many other young leaders and new church plants that are vibrant and making an eternal impact for the kingdom have chosen to NOT be a part of the SBC.
Just a thought...
Clif

Ed,

I cracked up at this: "You may not agree with how Andy Stanly preaches. That is fine. He can handle it. He is doing just fine."

When I read Communicating for a Change I had been preaching for about 6 years. I was verse-by-verse to that point but I did feel like you said, "I was cheating" - and not preaching the whole counsel of God's Word really concerned me.

After reading Stanley's thoughts and a few others (Planting Missional Churches -Ch.23- and Preaching on Your Feet) and now teaching a Preaching course to adult students - I challenge myself and others that rightly dividing the Word of Truth is more than regurgitation from a commentary.

Bill Fay said it creatively a few years ago, the problem is not that our people don't know enough - they're "spiritually constipated" - too much hearing, not enough doing.

(On a side note, at the height - er depth - of my preaching I had an outline with 18 points. Yes, 18 in one message, ah the foolishness of preaching.)

Ed-

Good word. I agree completely that we must learn from one another, especially from those outside of our own circles. That's why I spend time with so many baptists... The best thing that I have taken from Andy is from his book where he argues that if you cannot articulate what your sermon is about in 10-20 seconds, then there is no hope of your people being able to remember it. I think there is a lot of wisdom in that point.

I think a lot of the reason folks from the reformed camp had trouble with some of what Stanley said is that most of them do spend hours a week before the text, studying, praying and trying to craft a sermon that is both faithful to the Bible and also penetrating to the hearts of their hearers. Sure there are some guys who write 23 point sermons, but that does not describe most of the guys I know.

My main concern with the previous post is that we should never assume that simply because we are using the Bible, what we are preaching is true. Not because I think Stanley is off base in what he teaches, but because a lot of people learn from him, and a lot of those people make the jump to assuming that the primary purpose of a sermon is to be engaging and helpful often to the neglect of being faithful to the Scriptures and to the truth of the gospel.

I must admit that I have not listened to the interview, so I cannot address the comments made concerning that.

However, Ed made the statement, "The Bible is relevant in this and every culture. We do not need to make it relevant. However, I do believe we need to help people understand that it is relevant and how to apply it to their lives. And, Andy provides great insight of that process." This is the key, our preaching should be showing, on a week to week basis, how to rightly divide the Word and apply it to our own lives. If our preaching does not equip people so they can learn to apply the Word in a relevant way to their own lives, what are we doing in the pulpit? Preaching is supposed to be edifying the body, if it is some extreme art that only the "trained professional" can accomplish, then we are not doing our jobs. If that is what we are doing, I would add that we are even doing an injustice to the church because we are giving the impression that the Word is not something that is accessible to them--just the the elite.

Ed,

You are certainly correct in saying that those who have real disagreements with Andy's approach to preaching can learn to be a better communicator. I simply think that he could have prodded those of us committed to expository preaching in a more helpful manner than the way he did. Furthermore, your select comments gave the impression that you were guarded and geared up for the push back you knew that was going to come (kind of like a self-fulfilling prophecy, or set it up and knock 'em down kind of way). In the interest of learning from one another, it should go both ways, and the table should be set in a manner that it does not lend itself to a food fight but a friendly and substantive exchange of ideas.

I look forward to reading the rest of the interview, and, with an open mind, learn from Andy as a brother in Christ and fellow minister of the gospel.

Thanks for challenging us all, Ed.

great points, Mr. Stetzer. I would be curious to see how this statement is applied to other ministries rather than just the overall church congregation hearing a Sunday Sermon:

"I need to teach the Bible, not my views with the Bible as scriptural footnotes proving common sense thoughts."

I wonder if the church is teaching children and students less about the Bible and God and more about their views on behavior and common sense thoughts.

great blog post as always.

Luke,

I am on a quick class break so let me comment.

Having sat through many seminary chapel sermons where speakers said, "You are cheating your people if you do not preach verse-by-verse," I am not offended by one person who loves the word of God daring to push back a bit. ;-)

Thanks to all for coming back and for commenting graciously.

Ed

I had heard of this interview, yet didn't comment on the previous post...but found this satisfying from your current post:

"Of course, I also think there are lot of topical preachers who are cheating too, but that is another story for another day."

I look forward to this future post. Perhaps I'm out of the mainstream, but my experience has been that guys who do "advice with bible footnotes" are cheating far more often (if I understand the way in which Andy is using the word cheating). I would also agree that guys that give a verse by verse bible lecture are not necessarily engaging in the hard work of preaching either.

However, it's a false-choice to pit the many variations that fit into the expository style against the many variations that fit within the topical style--which is what I believe Andy did, inadvertently or not. While I can understand your use of the word provocative for Andy's comments, I might choose to label such comments unnecessarily incendiary instead. I mean come on...that kind of statement was going to elicit a heated reaction--both from the less mature and from those that preach verse by verse who are certainly not "cheating".

Personally, I think we all have lazy tendencies...depending on what our weaknesses are. In 1 Timothy 4:13 Paul tells Timothy (and us, I believe) to read the scripture, teach the scripture and exhort the scripture. A lot of topical guys might not study well or simply despise the academic side of things...so they skip any serious attempt to teach the/a text and move on to applicable exhortation.

On the flip side, many expository guys love the study aspect...teach well...but fail miserably in exhorting their hearers in a way that's translatable to their everyday life (usually because they're so removed from everyday life due to hiding out in their study, reading and such for 30 hours a week!).

Why must we unnecessarily pit topical/expository against one another? I ask that question of Andy as well as those that insist on verse-by-verse only.

Ed,
Thank you for releasing the interview on your blog and for your thoughtful response. You have opened a conversation among brothers about preaching that hopefully we all can benefit from.

Since the time of Jesus, the church has always wrestled with the messiness of bringing the gospel to people in culture. Clearly, the more things change...

I agree, its a shame that we have so many critics out there in the church. There's more than one way to preach effectivly. Im a fan of John MacArthur as well as Andy Stanley, both have effective styles of communicating truth in different environments. I like Andy's words of wisdom I heard at Catalyst this year... "Be a student, not a critic". We can learn a lot from each other if we won't act like we know everything. Thanks for the post Ed.

Why do we do what we do? Has it become more of an art form, than a heart-form? Did Peter, John, James, Stephen, or Paul preach from exegesis, isogesis, or lov-o-Jesus? For all of our valued learning and “preach-o-ramas” (I’m not against education just a misapplication of it) how many times have we missed the point of doing what Jesus did, i.e. meeting people where they were, in the condition they were in, with His relevant words which were full of life, and truth, and peace – even if spoken in rebuke – they were still full of love and compassion. “Though I speak with the tongues of Paul, or Rogers, or Stanley, or Graham, if I have not love, I have become a noisy gong and a clanging cymbal.” However you do it, may it be an overflow of what He has done in you. Every time someone begins to brag on my preaching, I remind them that if God spoke through a donkey, well…you can figure out the rest of the story. Sort of keeps things in perspective. God is looking more for willing than able and humble than proud, so that through the “foolishness of preaching” God will redeem souls and populate heaven. Thanks again Ed and I look forward to the next installment from Andy.

"Look, the reason I believe in verse-by-verse, expository preaching is not because it is "in" the text, but because of what the text "is." Though I do not only preach verse-by-verse, I preach exegetical, expository, text-driven messages because the text (Scripture) is inerrant, inspired, profitable, etc. and I need to teach the Bible, not my views with the Bible as scriptural footnotes proving common sense thoughts." - Great statement Ed, and right on the mark. This, and not styles or methods, should be our guideline for preaching.

While I enjoy the good points Stanley made, I still think it was a backhanded comment to say that those who engage in expository, verse-by-verse preaching are "cheating". Cheating is ripping off someone's thoughts from a commentary and playing it off as your own.

Great points, but also some clearly biased ones...

All forms of preaching has its place whether that be expository, textual or topically. But isn't all what we do especially when we teach and preach should be Spirit led?

You might be going through the book of Romans but you don't keep plowing through Christmas and Easter weekends for the sake of staying on schedule for Romans.

(Do I roll my eyes when I see truckload of pastors preach on finances back in late 2008 when we were going through a financial crisis? Yes. But I am not the shepherd of their flock. But I digress.)

Andy Stanley has been preaching for a good long while. Whatever his style of preaching is or his opinions of my preferred way of teaching, I not concerned with that. He has been doing this for a while. He has already paid the "stupid" tax in figuring out what works and doesn't work. I would be a fool not to gleam from what he can teach me.

Also, I noticed that no one has argued the point of our preaching being missional. Who is Andy preaching to? White, affluent families in the suburbs of Atlanta.

Who is Driscoll and Chandler preaching to? The 20-30 year old boys who need to grow up to be men.

I can understand a critique of certain kinds of verse-by-verse preaching that says they are dry and unhelpfully narrow in their focus. And I know that some preachers are poor communicators. That is too bad, and I hope that all of us are growing in our preaching.

But I have a difficult time understanding Stanley's "cheating" comment because he seems to be specifically addressing how to select your topics from Sunday to Sunday. If you decide to preach through a book of the Bible sequentially, then the text chooses the topic for you as you follow the narrative or argument. Stanley says he is challenged to "read the culture and read the audience" to identify felt or unfelt needs. This, I would assume, he believes is the opposite of cheating.

However, it seems like preaching through a book of the Bible would identify all kinds of felt and unfelt needs. That is one of the strongest arguments for sequential, expositional preaching. It forces us to deal with unfelt needs that we might be hesitant to recognize or discuss. So in that sense, it doesn't seem like you're cheating anyone by doing it that way.

Assuming you are communicating well, then you're not cheating God because you're being faithful to his Word. You're not cheating the people because you are confronting them with God's truth in the areas they would like to hide or avoid. As far as I can tell, that really is how God grows his people.

So as much as I appreciate being provocative, and generally I was helped by Stanley's challenge to be better communicators, I can't see how this "cheating" comment makes sense in its context.

There's obviously a need for different styles of preaching. And I learned you need to mix it up to break from the monotony of a specific style.

It's the topical that gets a little questionable only because many pastors get on biblegateway and type in a word and then there are a plethora of scirptures to choose from, many of which can be taken out of context. This seems to happen in our church on a weekly basis.

I absolutely believe there's a need for differing styles in the pulpit. And it's up to the pastor's of today's church to do more than just skim the top. You can be both topical and expository at the same time as long as God's word drives the message.

Thanks Ed for your work,

First off I am not a verse by verse preacher, and do agree with many of your points except:

If someone wants pastors to learn from him, that same person should not insult those he is trying to teach. If anyone else did this you would scold them. Don't have a double standard. Many pastors need encouragement, not condescending carnality. As I look around me I see pastors that need advice that is not coming from the place of prideful "I know it all, do what I do because although I am largely what I am because of my father and my location, I know best."

If you want people to listen and learn from Andy Stanley maybe you should inform him on good communication skills. Humility and a desire to encourage others is a good place to start.

Also, Andy Stanley seems to take the easy way out and be preaching to the choir himself when he says ad nauseum in his messages, "You remember this growing up in church." 95% of the people in my church would have no clue what that means.

Does Andy Stanley preach to people that don't agree with him? Or is he preaching to Bible belt, white, evangelicals?

Just something to think about.

I was taught this as a fledgling:
"Preach from the Word, Preach from the heart, Preach to change lives"
and
"Do not go beyond what stands written."
If you are looking for Biblical textbook examples of expository preaching, it's not there. But, look, we all know that we get a stronger, more robust sense of the context of the passages when we go verse/verse.

Sorry for the length, but my thoughts became a post for my blog. Still wanted to get in on the conversation though. Thanks for making this interview available.

The Word of God as a Campfire
I hate it when British Columbia has to enact a fire-ban at campsites in the summer. While I completely agree with the reasons, I grieve the loss of one of the best parts of camping: gathering with everyone around the fire at night. I love the warmth, the laughter and fun, the "smoke follows beauty" comments, the story telling, and of course the smores. Usually a few people move off into the night and head to bed, but a few of us will stay around the last and hottest coals, stoking the fire and sharing about what matters most to us in life. I wish the church's public habits of the Word were as magnetic and interactive, lively and refreshing, hot and reflective, relational and fun.

I have been following Ed Stezer's blog and interview with Andy Stanley regarding Communicating for a Change and the ensuing comments with interest. I believe the debate on what constitutes genuine preaching--expository and/or topical misses the point. No matter the technical approach taken to preaching, we miss the point if the Word of God does not become the fire calling us into the very presence of God. Our experience in the church of the Bible should be the Word of God as campfire.

My favorite commentary on 1 Thessalonians, To Thessalonians with Love, by John D. Hendrix, was given to me by a campus minister at the University of Georgia after we processed what it meant to be in ministry with people and with the Word of God. In the introduction Hendrix identifies the problem that I feel Andy Stanley is trying to get at in our preaching and the experience of the Church with Scripture. Hendrix believes that "the Christian's relationship to the Bible is in trouble." In fact he uses the term alienation to describe the situation.

Many Christians are attached to the Bible by an invisible ten-foot pole which joins them and keeps them apart. The pole has been constructed through years of the dry, lifeless recounting of biblical material unrelated and irrelevant to the deep needs of the heart. In this strange and bizarre position, the Christian maneuvers--swinging, punching, jabbing--keeping others away but unable to bring the living Word any closer....

I have listened to the message of the churches. How does the Word of God do its "work" in personal and corporate church life? I have listened for that through countless sermons, Bible Studies, small group discussion, and personal conversations. And there is the strange silence.

There are moments of reflection which are vaguely connected with a biblical phrase, sentence, verse, or book. Many discourses have the appearance of drawing from the biblical text. But, in reality, they are topical exercises, a cafeteria of "junk foods," full of artificial preservatives and additives, providing no nutritional value and an abundance of hyperactivity. I have been listening for the transforming moment when a body of Scripture (a unit, paragraph, or text) actually touches the inner depths of a personal struggle.

It is simply not there. Or it is a private experience that it cannot be expressed in a way that is helpful to others. The Bible is primarily a public book to be read, proclaimed, and interpreted in the presence of others. Like most of Paul's letters, 1 Thessalonians is directed to a church. Bible study loses much of its force unless it is spoken and heard in the company of God's people.

I am not addressing the issues of inspiration, interpretation, and inerrancy. I am addressing the issue of intimacy--personal and interpersonal closeness to the biblical text in daily life. Unconscious alienation from the Bible is present in churches of all theological persuasions....

The crucial question remains in how intimately we deal with the text. No matter how much lip service and respect is given to the biblical text, it still remains distant from the lives of many people. In our most crucial specific life situations, we find Scripture irrelevant, unhelpful, or unapproachable. We have neither the tools nor the time to learn it. Our training has given us an appreciation for Scripture without the sills to access to it. I am looking for a warm friendliness with Scripture, an increase in intimacy and closeness, a lively presence of Scripture in the midst of our life together.

(selected paragraphs pages 13-15, To the Thessalonians with Love: An Interpersonal Commentary on 1 Thessalonians, by John D. Hendrix, Broadman Press, 1982.)

Now that is a huge excerpt from Hendrix but I hope you are getting the picture. Perhaps the preacher's or the Bible study teacher or facilitator is job is to release the power of Scripture as a campfire. In our often rainy setting building a campfire requires some planning, some protection, some work. But the rewards are immense. Perhaps the first thing a preacher or communicator of God's Word must do is meet God in the burning coals of Scripture and be convicted in heart and transformed in deep places in order to gather people and apply the unfamiliar warmth of Scripture to their familiar patterns of life. (Isaiah informs this picture; see Isaiah 6.)

Really I don't care if the communicator of Scripture frames the fire of God's Word by topic or by verse as long as the communicator rightly honours the voice of Scripture by giving due diligence to the text and to the people gathered around the campfire. After a year of experimenting with Andy Stanley's approach as presented in Communicating for a Change I can honestly say that the good skills of exegesis are better accompanied by story-line created by Me, You, God, You, We. When I started using his communication strategy I felt like I was learning to ride a bike for the first time. But now the pattern has energized my preaching and has enabled me to help other young communicators get a handle on delivering the warmth of God's Word to others.

I think part of the reason Andy referred to it as "cheating" is because he finds it much harder to preach for application and to make people feel the unfelt need they have. It's hard to preach for the unchurched person who doesn't know who Moses was along with the churches person who needs to be challenged in a new way.

I would agree with Andy that it's much easier for me to go verse by verse and teach the text. It's much harder to think like all the various listeners would, realize how to make them WANT to hear the the truth, and help them apply it to their lives.

If that all comes easy to somebody, then verse-by-verse may be more challenging to them and wouldn't be "cheating".

Weird. I re-scanned the comments for that post and just don't see what you seem to see Ed. The majority of the "concerned comments" seemed to be not about the lack of verse-by-verse method, but about questioning the weight given to figuring out "felt needs" or "unfelt needs", the lack of the Spirit in a post about "communicating the Gospel" and so on.

It would have been nice to see you interact with those thoughts at least a little Ed. It's odd to accuse people of missing all the great stuff by getting stuck on one thing when you seem to have done the same. :)

Dwayne,

I'm pretty comfortable with my observation about the comments on my blog and elsewhere on other blogs.

FYI: I don't interact with everything on my blog due to job constraints. But you (and others) are always free to do so.

Thanks for dropping by. I have to go back to class now.

Ed

First of all…Ed, thanks for your ministry. Big fan of your work and appreciate the plethora of relevant topics you intelligently address in your blog.

Secondly, I think Andy’s book Communicating for a Change was terrific. I am enjoying the added dimension these blog post(s) offer. I think it is unfair to accuse Andy of delving too far away from verse-by-verse preaching. Most of the time I listen to Andy he is examining a single (and connected) passage of Scripture. Certainly there are times where he will omit certain verses so as to highlight his single point. However to suggest that he (or anyone else who deviates from the “typical” 3-point model of expository preaching) does not accurately communicate God’s truth would be wrong. Andy rightly argues that application is more important than information. The information is easy to find with all of the terrific helps Lifeway (shameless plug) offers. It is the application of the stated truth which moves people towards life change. This is where the breakdown occurs. This is why people walk away from the truth. It is not that they don’t understand it…they just don’t know how to use it.

Ed -

There are plenty of trends I don't like in church these days, but I always appreciate your balanced views. I'm not a huge fan of Andy Stanley's style, but I need to be reminded that while methods might differ, motives may often be the same. It gives me faith in the styles that I don't like. It reminds me that the Spirit is coordinating it all anyway, and he's got a knack for variety.

Thanks for constantly defending and promoting that variety.

Adam

I'm pretty sure I'm the guy who first brought up the "Lukan account of Jesus explaining the Scriptures," and I appreciate the wrist slap. It's a good post.

But at the risk of redundancy, I think it's ironic that the original post was about effective communication, because I never said Jesus was doing verse-by-verse there, but that didn't stop several commenters writing their rebuttals as if I did.

What I said was if it wasn't verse-by-verse, it at least appears to be section by section, which I don't believe to be a grasp at straws, but just a valid understanding of what the text says: "Beginning with the Law and the Prophets, he showed them everything in the Scriptures concerning himself."

But that's neither here nor there, and I -- along with plenty of others pushing back -- said that Andy Stanley is a great man, that I profit from his preaching, and that I not only affirm the validity of topical preaching, I do it myself!

But, again, that didn't appear to be enough (for some).

I know sometimes critics can miss the forest for the trees.
But there are at least two sides to this discussion and I think both demonstrated the inability to receive criticism well.

I spent 15 years in the attractional church, both as a lay teacher and as a professional minister, only leaving it two years ago. I know from experience that one of the glaring weaknesses of the tribe is lack of self-reflection.

It is neither prudent nor Christian to reflexively write off all criticism as being from lame, ax-grinding fundies.

As Andy Stanley himself says, if we cut off debate, we kill the team.

Thanks for your blog Ed.

In my recent history, expository preaching has saved my job. I don't go verse by verse, sometimes its chapter by chapter or thought by thought.

A year and a half into my current charge we had a major conflict. I was 1/4 way through Ephesians and while we dealt with the issues, I continued in my series. Themes of prayer, unity and love continued to emerge through the series. I was accused of using the pulpit to further my own agenda and had the simple defense that "it was just next."

(By the way, we can implement Andy's insights for communication into expository sermons. His looking for "felt needs" isn't very different from Tim Keller's emphasis on looking for cultural defeaters and points of engagement. The problem is, when Keller says it, its safe. When Stanley says it, its selling out.)

"O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,” for by professing it some have swerved from the faith." 1 Tim. 6:20-21 (ESV)

Why is this such a huge argument among the brethren called to preach the gospel (the guarded and entrusted deposit)? Where is the line drawn between secular "knowledge" taught as "truth" (disguised as Biblical application for today) and the preaching and teaching of The Truth (He who died on the cross for our sins and rose to rule at the right hand of God)? He IS the life application and the method of our communication.

I agree with Ed on many of his points in this latest post. I truly appreciate his willingness to step out with this series and the risk he took in posting this up. But, as I read the posts and the comments that are made I think that this "controversy" is really less about the style and techniques used in preaching (communicating) and more about the way we convey the gospel in a more "relevant" way.

Ed said, "The Bible is relevant in this and every culture. We do not need to make it relevant. However, I do believe we need to help people understand that it is relevant and how to apply it to their lives. And, Andy provides great insight of that process."

Is there really any insight for "that process" beyond the process already demonstrated for us in God's word? I know some will argue that we need to change with the times to reach those who live in these times, but I'm not sure focusing on the way we communicate will address the way we (Christians) need to change with the times.

I'm not sure this is the kind of change that is healthy (from Part 1): "...that's why preaching by points is a terrible model. Because points are not a journey. Points are points. But communication is: Here we all are. We all have a common need or desire. We all have something in common, and I am going to stay here until I make you feel the need to have it resolved. And then I am going to open God's Word and resolve it. And I am going to take that and tell you what you need to do specifically. And then I am going to take a minute and talk about what the world would be like, how much better off we would all be, if we would all do what the Scriptures say. It is really that simple."

What does the non-believer have in common with the believer as they sit next to each other listening to Andy preach or within the context of "church"? The "journey"? No, sin... Is it our goal to talk about "what the world would like" if we...? You know this world is due to pass away. Or, are we supposed to in all our communication/preaching point to Christ as He who changed the world and set the sinner free. This message can be applied to everyone within earshot the believer and non-believer alike, but I find no "journey" with this just a destination.

We have a plethora of books out there that theorize on how one should "preach" or "communicate". Most have some merit in the theories they propose. Is there merit in "verse-by-verse" point-by-point preaching? Yes. Is there merit in a "topical" framework? Yes. Is there merit in a blending of the two? Yes. But the point is these are all theories. By focusing on these we forfeit the proper focus due to Jesus who was the perfect communicator.

I see this series and discussion as one that proves the point that Paul makes with Timothy. We can babble all day long about what form of preaching is "correct" and "preferred" as we seek to be "relevant", after all, it is but a philosophical question. But, still more and more depart from the church and more and more are not reached (See Ed's posted statistics over the last couple of days). We need to communicate less "I'm going to's" in our speech and more He is going to in our preaching no matter the "style" or "method", so that everyone knows that Jesus is the only relevant thing that can be relied upon at any time ever.

I anxiously await Andy's book from Amazon as I have ordered it to see for myself what this issue all about. I hope I am not disappointed by what I read. I hope I find Christ Jesus communicated and not man placated at the very center of what Andy writes in regard to the way he thinks we should communication.

God Bless...
Mike

Jared,

I am comfortable with my comments. And I did not write off criticism (though I can't speak for others). I put up the blog expecting (and hoping) for a good lively discussion, learning, and even some push back. Some did that. Others did not.

What I wrote about today was the "scorn" that is so prevalent in some parts of the preaching conversation.

Also, I was not referring to your comment in reference to the verse-by-verse preaching mention. There were plenty of others out there on the blogs. ;-)

And, you are always welcome to debate and push back here because of the spirit in which you do so!

Back to class... yet again!

Thanks,

Ed

I'm not positive that 'expository' means 'verse-by-verse' -- that is, much of what passes for expository these days is simply verse-by-verse running commentary (I think Ed stated this earlier). Here's what frequently happens in 'expository' preaching: the passage is read; the preacher begins discussion with the pronouncement 'the first verse tells us...', at which time he frequently repeats the verse he just read, and gives a bit of commentary; then, the preacher says 'the next verse tells us...' wherein the process is repeated; this cycle is repeated for as many verses as are in the passage. So YES, ANDY STANLEY, and all the rest of you whose hackles were raised and whose sensibilities were offended by his nomenclature, this type of 'expository', 'verse-by-verse' preaching is LAZY and CHEATS the congregation from the true proclamation of the word.

Ed,

Thanks for the Andy stuff and the family way you deal with people. It's very refreshing.

Andy Stanley and Calvin Miller are my favorites. Their committment to one point preaching has helped me a great deal and I'm grateful to them. Thanks for putting this on the table.

Ed,

Jesus did not carry a scroll when He was walking and interacting with people, but He did quote from the Old Testament as an absolute foundation of what He was illustrating.

He was and is the Living Word, and we should strive to be as incarnational as possible as we convey the truth in everyday situations.

While some scripture lends itself to an expository approach – namely, the epistles – isn’t it rather odd how some think that a walking-down-the-road narrative by Jesus to simple people using simple, real-life examples needs to be dissected to the point that simple people need a degree to understand it?

As communicators we need to know what God actually wants His people to know and do. Methods and styles are tools. A life following Christ and making Him known is the goal, and any communication style that does not rally God’s people to greater devotion and service should be reexamined.

I use many styles when communicating depending on the audience and the topic. Andy’s book really helped me to be a better communicator because I was becoming a repetitive, one-trick pony of a teacher who was afraid to land the plane (actually end the message without repeating it again, and again..)

Thanks for the post!

As a Director of Missions I have the opportunity to hear preaching from most of my Pastors and if I could give many of them one piece of advice it would be this. After you finish putting your sermon together ask yourself this two word question, "So What?". Your sermon can be biblically based and theologically sound as it can get but if it makes no impact on the lives of the people in your audience either to show them how to become a Christian or to prepare them to live effective Christian lives so they can be an effective witness for Christ in their world then all you've given them is a lecture and not a sermon.

You do know how to elicit responses, don't you brother?

The conversation relating to these posts has been fascinating. I would like to drop in my own two cents worth: I think many preachers mistake exegetical preaching for expositional preaching. The former simply talks about the details, grammar, background, etc. of the passage. The latter tries to illuminate the passage with explanation, illustration, and especially application. An exegetical preacher wants the listeners to know what the text says; an expositor wants the listener to understand how God is speaking to him or her in the text, and what the implications of that text are for our lives.

Exposition can take lots of different forms -- sometimes it is verse-by-verse, sometimes it is Big Idea preaching, sometimes it is narrative, and so on. Real expositors have to do serious exegetical work; they just don't stop there.

Thanks for posts like this that keep us thinking. Enjoy beautiful Chicago in March!

Thanks for your study on this topic Ed.

This was good for me to hear and revisit. Both styles are good. As long as lives are challenged and changed. Whatever the method, lets love the people that God has put i our flock.

- Justin

To use yet another Andy Stanley one-liner..."I'm here to be a student before a critic." However, I would like to say that I've heard one-liners from both stetzer, stanley, other expository vs. topical professors that sound cool, but never really get to the heart of the issue, "How should we teach the Bible?" Sure Andy, sermons in the Bible weren't verse by verse because those were the words that became the verses. We can't say that as preachers today...unless we're the pope..so that doesn't really count as ammunition for pro-topical guys...Stanley certainly preaches pragmatist Christianity that asserts "Christianity Works" Expositors support more of a doctrinal and theological Christianity... At any rate, the issue here is much deeper than necessarily teaching the Bible, but rather,let's ask the question "who you are teaching to?" a different audience attends NPCC than a Bethlehem Baptist Church.. Stanley assumes he is teaching to those who aren't necessarily mature disciples, but a congregation who doesn't even have to be Christian for the most part to "get it" Whereas a John Piper preaches for deep exegetical points verse by verse..Point being... these are Two different audiences.... a philosophically and foundational difference in ecclesiology. David Platt preaches point after point yet still the pews are flooded with engaged listeners who look past his speech impediment... Sometimes we fail to forget the power of the Spirit involved in preaching.. Platt averages 1 hr messages of passion and spirit filled sermons... point by point.. I think andy would rightly say, one of Platt's messages could easily be a sermon series maybe even 2 or 3.. I listen to both Platt and Stanley... They are both needed as a part of communicating the urgency of the gospel... both different styles and philosophy of preaching. In conclusion, what's most important is to be faithful to the calling of Christ preach Christ Crucified.. insodoing, and regardless of what i've been taught in seminary, I tend to swing toward stanley's philosophy because I have seen more life change happen teaching through One main principlist point rather than runnning commentary..when God's word is preached...life change should happen..If Life change fails to happen, then we, as preachers (not communicators) should evaluate and ....Yes..take responsibility and not shove in on god's lap.....and heaven forbid, change how we structure or communicate the gospel.

You are challenging my close-mindedness. Be careful.
:-)

I found the articles challenging and encouraging. I don't how many times I have asked myself, "Am I just sharing information?" I plan to buy and read Andy's book. Thanks for the postings.

As to the replies ... I read a few but hey it is the nature of the beast in us to give our opinions, after all we love to study and quote from First & Second Opinions.

I am reformed. I also happen to believe that Andy Stanley is one of the finest modern communicators of truth. He is in-tune with our culture and intimate with God's Word and how it makes biblical living in our world a reality. I am honored to have experienced change in my life personally after hearing Andy preach and reading his books. I am indebted to him and others like him who risk authentic communication of absolute truth that effects our daily lives.

What a terrific group of posts. You sir, have done much to make this old dog think about his delivery and impact on his (albeit few) hearers.

One thing that I've noticed, while many here have been taken aback by Rev. Stanley's major point, no one has shown him wrong biblically. He stated below that expositional preaching isn't modelled in Scripture. Oh and he called it cheating too. Yet while most who have gone up in arms over the cheating remark, no one has given thought (so far as I have seen) to his statement about the biblical model.

Just a little fly in our methodological ointment I suppose. What a blessing you are brother.

You are the Church!
R.A.

And I also get irked when people write comments longer than (or nearly as long as) the original blog post. Maybe that's just me.

Thanks for this post Ed. It was very much needed. We all need humility when approaching these things and a willingness to learn.

Well stated Ed, the scriptures are full of different models of how God communicates His truth to us, we would do well to study those models (i.e., of God Himself, and His servants), and seek to emulate that incredible diversity and creativity in our own preaching/teaching/communicating opportunitties.

Ed,

Excellent summary. I think you added good perspective.

Just because one doesn't *present* a sermon in a verse-by-verse fashion doesn't mean they didn't prepare that way. I think we should talk more about "expositional" and "exegetical" preparation, not presentation.

Michael,

Thanks for coming by and for the kind words. I appreciate you highlighting the interview at Preaching.com and, as always, we love Preaching Magazine.

Larry,

Thanks for modeling the fact that we can learn from different people.

As always, a voice of reason Ed. Thanks for being there for all of us young ministers. Some of us don't know how to embrace others and learn from each other. I am amazed myself how anyone could argue that even the most rigorous verse-by-verse approach that doesn't bring about transformation (meeting needs) is missing the mark and not accomplishing what God wants. God wants us to be transformed by the words he gave us. Don't forget that the teachers of the law were the one's who missed Jesus when he came. We have to be more. We have to call people to response. Transformation.

Love you Ed. Pray for you often.
James