In part two of Andy Stanley’s comments on preaching he says this:
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. No one in the Scripture modeled that. There's not one example of that.
Regardless of the value of verse-by-verse preaching (which seems more important than Stanley thinks), I think the argument here is flawed.
He argues that “no one in the Scripture modeled that.” Which leads to the question, where in Scripture is any form of week-to-week pastoral preaching modeled? I can’t think of one.
So let’s turn the statement slightly:
Guys that preach on felt needs -- that is just cheating. It's cheating because that would be easy, first of all. That isn't how you grow people. No one in the Scripture modeled that. There's not one example of that.
You see, Stanley’s argument cannot be sustained. It works equally well against him as it does for him.
If we are to follow only scriptural models, we don’t have one to follow in terms of weekly pastoral preaching.
Perhaps in another post I will address why I think preaching verse-by-verse is one of the most helpful, most biblical ways to preach.
But for now, I think we should realize that while Stanley is a great communicator, he does not seem to be a great thinker about the basis for a methodology of preaching.
1 comment:
Well said. If he's going to make a case against v. by v., he'll need stronger arguments than that. Look fwd to your case for v. by v.
Have to admit though, he's right about one thing, in my experience v. by v. is easier in one way: I don't have to try to decide on a topic. Since I find that more difficult than studying a text, I lean twd serial text preaching.
Easier or not, I think it's the right thing to do most of the time.
Post a Comment