Hi K-Bo,

Thanks for coming back. I agree that there are too many sites that do this sort of thing purely out of spite and/or hatred. As you see, my goal is neither.

I think Peter Mead is going to be using the next series of posts to explain his position while commenting on my post. I'll comment on each of his posts in response. I may do a follow-up post, as you suggest, to clarify my position out of these comments.

You asked: "Am I correct in understading that your point more relates to preaching, for examply on a Sunday, than to Bible teaching which many churches do through the week be it in small groups or at a service?"

Yes, that is my primary topic here. For instance, I am teaching through the end times in five weekends right now. Obviously, that is not nearly enough time. So during the Sunday worship service I am teaching the big ideas (the Tribulation shows that God keeps his promises) and leaving the detailed teaching for a smaller group on Sunday evening.

My position is that, since we have only a limited amount of time and the greatest number of people on Sunday morning, those messages should be targeted to widest audience possible. What most people consider expository preaching (verse-by-verse, book-by-book), does not accomplish that, in my experience.

Thanks for your response. I guess I misjudged your intentions on starting the debate. Please forgive my criticism. I guess that my concern came from a trend of too many people “taking a swipe” at others which goes on. I can see now you were seeking to open up a friendly debate on the matter (which you have acheived).

What may be useful for us who are less trained on these matters would be a short paragraphy, from yourself and Mead, giving a summary of your different points of view to more easily compare (then leaving the larger comments that have been posted for more in-depth comparison and understanding).

Am I correct in understading that your point more relates to preaching, for examply on a Sunday, than to Bible teaching which many churches do through the week be it in small groups or at a service?

Hi Charles,

This is a great discussion. Thanks for keeping it going.

You said: "So for most of the last 3500 years the Scriptures would be read publicly, nor privately. It is likely then that all the Scriptures were originally written for public, not private dissemination."

No doubt about that at all. The first half of what we call the Old Testament was a collection of stories passed down orally throughout the generations until someone wrote them down. (Although, don't forget that Moses did tell the people to write down the law, and teach it in their private homes to their families – Deuteronomy 6.)

Solomon, Hezekiah, and others collected the proverbs over a period of a couple hundred years. Of course, the prophets all preached their messages over a span of about 600 years.

The gospels were written down as recollections from the apostles (except for Luke, which was a two-part series with Acts written especially for Theophilus).

And the apostolic letters (including the Revelation) were written to be read in churches and passed around.

However, just because they were normally read publicly doesn't mean they were understood as read. In fact, a big deal is made in Nehemiah, for example, because the returning exiles didn't fully understand the law as Ezra read it. So Levites "were teaching the people the law…They read from the book of God's law, explaining it and imparting insight. Thus the people gained understanding from what was read." (Nehemiah 8:7-8)

In this case, the exiles hadn't heard the Law for so long that Ezra had them stand as he read the whole thing from morning until night – a far cry from our worship services today. But teaching was necessary for them to understand it.

I think of Jesus and the apostles, who taught the OT Scriptures, but not in straight-through fashion. In fact, Jesus and Paul both would sometimes quote just a couple of words from an OT passage and make an entire teaching around it. We never find them quoting, much less teaching through, a whole book or even chapter.

You said: "I think that you might need to reconsider your view of preaching in light of Judeo-Christian history and not just the present."

I understand what you're saying, but the fact is, we live in the present, not the past. Some people take your statement too far and say that only certain translations should be used. Or that modern technology should not enter into our church doors. When the Scriptures were new, they engaged their modern audience. I believe that our methods of teaching the Scriptures should always be changing to engage the people we have.

I guess what I'm saying is that, when it comes to teaching people, I try to start with where they are, the issues they are facing, the questions they are asking, and use the Scriptures to show them the truth of the matter and point them in the right direction.

Sometimes that means going through an entire book or letter. But most of the time it is a 3-5 week series on what the Bible says about a topic. Which, by the way, allows me to go much, much deeper on that topic or doctrine than I could if I were teaching straight through a book.

Thanks for hel;ping me to think these things through.

One final point. I think that you might need to reconsider your view of preaching in light of Judeo-Christian history and not just the present. When the biblical books were written the idea of reading was almost always public. It was not until the invention of the printing press about 500 years ago that most people could afford to have a copy of one of the books, much less the whole Bible. So for most of the last 3500 years the Scriptures would be read publicly, nor privately. It is likely then that all the Scriptures were originally written for public, not private dissemination. And I would suggest that many of these hearers were able to find the Scriptures relevant and helpful without going topical.

Hi Charles,

Thanks for your continued thoughts.

You said: "All things being equal, why not approach the book as it was intended to be read?" I think that this is our main point of departure. I see a difference between personal reading and what we do as teachers. I encourage people to read through the Scriptures, but I am not going to teach them like that because some things are more important and more applicable to the group at large in the few minutes (or more) that I have with them each weekend.

You said: "By the way, you have misunderstood my comment concerning order." Yes, I must have. It sounded like you were still talking about the books themselves when you said, "The fact is that God has chosen to give us books, not snippets of books. The fact is that God has ordered the books in a particular way."

You said: "Are you suggesting that preaching the Bible as it written will not be able to trace thee threads or pick up the timeless principles?" Not if you have the time to do a thorough study. But most of us do not have that kind of time in the worship service. Or if we take that time (Romans over 3 years, for instance), we can neglect all sorts of other equally or more important things along the way, an imbalance in the other direction from topical-style preaching.

You said: "Are you suggesting that doing or understanding exposition requires the theologically trained?" To a point, yes. Proper Bible interpretation is very much both a science and an art that must be learned. But I also believe that the church is supposed to be raising up people who can accurately do that kind of study. I just don't think that Sunday morning (or whenever the corporate worship takes place) is the time or place for that.

You said: "In my opinion, topical study requires more theological sensitivity than exposition, lest you get into an oversimplified form of proof-texting." That's an excellent point which has been proven many times over by those who mistreat the Scriptures. The other extreme is also true, though, that people park in a certain book for way too long, reading into it things that should be taught from elsewhere. This is why it is especially important for teachers to do the kind of exposition for which Peter Mead and I (and I assume, you) strive for every time we open the text.

You said: "I can say that my high view of Scripture seeks to honor the Word by proclaiming that Word in the order it was given and not in the way I wish it were given." That's fair. I don't think it's wrong to teach that way. I would say, "My high view of Scripture seeks to honor God by proclaiming his Word as a response to the growth needs of the people who sit before me." For me, sometimes that is straight through an apostle's letter. But most of the time it is addressing doctrines or issues that the people are dealing with at the time.

Hi Charles,

Thanks for your comments. Let me take them individually, in several responses.

You said: "For example, whether Scripture was originally written in sermonic form or not is irrelevant. We are not preaching the form of the book, but the content of the book."

That's true, which is the basis for my thoughts. There are many people (although Peter Mead does not) who demand that the Scriptures be preached as written, never jumping around, in order to be accurate to the text. My point is that we can be faithful and accurate without having to go straight through, precisely because the Scriptures themselves do not demand a specific form.

I just used Peter's post as a springboard for this topic.

I am fine with your correction concerning "books." My point is simply this that Genesis 1 (or whatever you want to call it) was placed before Genesis 2, and so on. Note that even the book of Psalms has a particularly designed arrangement (Psalms 1-41, 42-72, etc). Note the structural marker which concludes each book ("blessed be the Lord"). Genesis is also clearly structured and arranged with toledot (these are the generations). So whether you want to call it a book or not, or whether you agree with chapter and verse divisions or not, is really beside the point. The content of the "book" is arranged in a particular way, and I would suggest a purposeful way. What is the best way to honor that purposeful arrangement? All things being equal, why not approach the book as it was intended to be read?

By the way, you have misunderstood my comment concerning order. I am not arguing for a particular canonical arrangement. My point concerned the order of the material in the book. In any case, please note that God did not give us a topical Bible He gave us a Bible which addressed topics in a way that he apparently wanted them addressed.

You state: "By using a topical method, I show by example that the Bible has answers to life's questions, not just in one book or chapter, but in common threads throughout. I show that it is approachable by everyone, not just the learned or theologically trained. I show that in the middle of the stories of long-gone people and places, there are timeless principles at work, so it's not a waste of time to read it and study it." A couple of questions here. Are you suggesting that preaching the Bible as it written will not be able to trace thee threads or pick up the timeless principles? Are you suggesting that doing or understanding exposition requires the theologically trained? In my opinion, topical study requires more theological sensitivity than exposition, lest you get into an oversimplified form of proof-texting,

You state, "Anyone who hears even one or two of the messages that I give during our worship services knows that I have an extremely high view of the Scriptures. One of my favorite sayings is that the Bible is God's very own heart and mind given to us on paper in a language that we can plainly understand." Whether you hold a view of Scripture or not (and I suspect that you do) is not for me to decide. I can say that my high view of Scripture seeks to honor the Word by proclaiming that Word in the order it was given and not in the way I wish it were given.

However, I knew – though I forgot – that Peter Mead does not define expository preaching like that. In fact, he and I have a shared regard on handling the text with accuracy when preaching and teaching (2 Timothy 2:15).

I have corrected the sentence that wrongly identified Mead in that way. The rest of my post is accurate, and it was Weirsbe's quote in Mead's post that triggered it.

I trust we can continue to discuss this important topic, even though I was wrong in that statement.

Last one. You said: "We teach content (what is in the text) and we teach method (how should we handle the text)."

I absolutely agree with you. That's a great way to put it.

You asked: "What does topical preaching teach people about how to handle the text?"

I believe it shows that the Scriptures were given to us to be used, memorized, handled, not just studied for theory. As I said, I'm all for Bible study, theological discussions, etc., but most people want to know how to do life.

By using a topical method, I show by example that the Bible has answers to life's questions, not just in one book or chapter, but in common threads throughout. I show that it is approachable by everyone, not just the learned or theologically trained. I show that in the middle of the stories of long-gone people and places, there are timeless principles at work, so it's not a waste of time to read it and study it.

Anyone who hears even one or two of the messages that I give during our worship services knows that I have an extremely high view of the Scriptures. One of my favorite sayings is that the Bible is God's very own heart and mind given to us on paper in a language that we can plainly understand.

When we interact with the Scriptures, we are interacting with God himself. And I believe that, just like every other relationship, our relationship with him is not simply linear, but fluid, moving, and growing. And our interaction with his Word should be the same.

Great thoughts, Charles; thanks for the great discussion!

You said: "Let me ask you something. How would you like someone to read or go through your book? Would you want them to interact with your book a sentence here, a paragraph there?"

I see a difference between what we do in our worship services and what people do in their own personal or small group study.

If someone sat down to read what I had to say on marriage, divorce, and remarriage, I would expect them to read it through, at least within in each of the sections. That said, I also wrote it in such a way that I can say, "You know, read chapter 7 of my book if you want information on the biblical discussion of marriage between a Christian and a non-Christian."

My goal during Sunday worship is not to teach everything about everything in the Scriptures. It is to lead God's people one step closer to him and inspire them to do something about that step this week in their very busy lives.

Again, sometimes I do that by teaching through a biblical book or letter, because it addresses those things. Many times, however, I do like the apostles, prophets, and Jesus, and address the issue, using the Scriptures as the basis for my response to the issues.

This is where Peter and I agree – the Scriptures should be taught accurately to address the issues they were meant to address.