Just Think... How Should We Teach the Bible?

The debate continues to heat up b/t preachers who support an expository style vs. a topical style. Recently, Ed Stetzer, lifeway researcher, sat down with preaching rockstar Andy Stanley about his book "Communicating for a Change, which is #1 in 3 different categories on Amazon.com. Andy was raised and trained on expositional teaching, but his books supports a different style that should be given thoughtful consideration at the very least. maybe even restructuring an expository message and rehearsing it to an audience as a test.. The issue of expository vs. topical gets complex b/c of reasons I don't have the time to go into at this moment.. However, It may be that we are polarizing the two unjustly. Is it not true that many expository messages are topical in nature... You can still use Andy's method and stay expository... In fact, I've heard Andy exegete passages better than Johnny Mac and Piper. For instance, Stanley did a Series on the Book of Romans called NuMe.. While it had the catchy slogan and single "sticky statements" it still was exegetical and strongly theological...

Ed Stetzer posted 3 blogs, you can find here http://blogs.lifeway.com/blog/edstetzer/ about Andy Stanley's philosophy of communicating the gospel. It is worthy to read.. If you are interested, it would be best to read Stanley's book separately. 

I also responded to Stetzer remarks....

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.. and Catholic.. but I know that most readers here aren't..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, but bring in application of course through their points beit alliteration or fill in the blank... 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 or preaching to?" a different audience attends NPCC than a Bethlehem Baptist Church.. Stanley assumes he is teaching to those who aren't necessarily mature disciples.. or even Christians..., He assumes that his congregation doesn't even have to be Christian for the most part to "get it".. that is understand the Biblical principle that has OUR best interest at heart... Whereas a John Piper preaches for deep exegetical points verse by verse..Point being.My hunch is that his audience is assumed to be Christians that have a deep desire to grow.. so deep that he spent years in the book of Romans.. 

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 never get bored with his missiological zeal... Sometimes we fail to forget the power of the Spirit involved in preaching, much like Auturo G. Azurdia talks about in his book "Spirit Empowered Preaching http://www.spiritempoweredpreaching.com/. 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 structure of a message and choosing topical or expository based on the audience. I find expository can mean more harmony and narration than a topical. I structure some messages with Stanley's technique because I have seen more life change happen teaching through One main principlist point rather than runnning commentary. I've delivered the same content with different structure's and Stanley's wins every time over the point by point system..People are engaged when your sermon in narrative.. I've heard compelling messages from both camps, but I can recall more content as a hearer from Stanley's camp.. Most preachers don't even remember their points... How do you expect the people to remember??.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 ....and Yes..take responsibility for our message and not become apathetic to our efforts and then say it's God's responsibility as a cop out for your your preparation..It is God's responsibility, but He has always used people who are obedient and willing to point people to Him. Don't use theology for apathy's sake....and heaven forbid, change how we structure or communicate the gospel.