The Monologue
Earlier this year at the Acts 29 Bootcamp in Chicago Mark Dever spoke on Evangelism and Church Planting, and something he said about preaching has stuck with me more than anything else I heard at that gathering. It is particularly provocative in light of the current conversation that is taking place among pastors about the nature and place of preaching in the church.
Some have become vocal in their objection to preaching as a “monologue.” Some argue that a unilateral proclamation of truth as the regular form of preaching in the church is a bad thing in that it prohibits dialog, turns people into passive spectators, and contributes to the sit-there-and-do-nothing ethos of many of our evangelical churches. But at the Acts 29 Bootcamp Mark Dever argued that gospel-centered preaching as “monologue” is not only biblical, but is practical in that both the content and even the form itself point to the grace of God as our only hope of redemption.
In salvation God acts. He accomplishes our redemption while we receive it by faith. Because salvation is of the Lord, to “sit there and do nothing” is the proper posture of the sinner. Of course that is an overstatement, and I know this is not the point of those arguing against the monologue, but the point is relevant. God has acted on our behalf, he sends his word out into the world announcing this work, and we respond to this word in faith/repentance. When God converts a man he does so through the preaching/proclamation of the word, (Rom 10). Dialog, while good, is not required. When God sanctifies his people, and brings revival to the church and world, he uses Scripture (Jn. 17:17. 2 Thess. 2:13; ). “Back and forth” is often used, but is not necessary. The explicit testimony of Scripture, and the implicit example of the preaching in both the Old and New Testatments all lift up the sermon as monologue as a good thing. In fact, a normative thing. God speaks, and his people are changed. God’s word goes out, and does not return void.
I believe back and forth is an important and necessary aspect to Christian ministry. We should seek opportunities to cultivate such dialog in order to reason with people about the gospel, counsel, etc. But to claim that dialog is necessary for preaching to be effective is not just a stretch, it mocks both the model of the apostolic church and the means of God. Yes, let’s create opportunities for dialogical ministry/teaching, but let’s not abandon the proclamation of Scripture “as monolog” as if it were merely an antiquated and ineffective approach to teaching. I am convinced with Mark that such preaching makes much of the gospel in content and form.
Joe, thanks for the comment. I think what complainants against preaching miss is that with Holy Spirit blessed preaching there is a real dialogue going on in the hearing hearts – a person with his/her God. I was reminded of this in CJ Mahaney’s recent conversation with Sinclair Ferguson. Ferguson has a lot of insight into this. (You can download the conversation from the Sov Grace Min website.)
Thanks Stephen. Good words, and I’ll check the audio asap.
While I see your point, I think their is a something to be said of contextualization here. The Gospel never changes, but depending on culture the medium in which we share the gospel has to change. I think this has to include the method in which we preach. I think for Mark Dever he is right to stand and preach a monological sermon because that is what the culture around him in DC listens to. In other places and other times it is different.
One of the easiest ways to point this out is with the younger 20 something generation (of which I am a part). We have, for most of our lives, been told to question and dialogue, and to use these methods to obtain knowledge. This leads to a large number of young people who find it very difficult to hear and listen to a monologue without being able to question, comment, or state their point of view. Blogs are a perfect example of this. The blogs that are the most popular are the ones that people can leave comments and continue a dialogue. Blogs that do not allow comments are less trafficked.
So I am not saying that dialogue is necessary in all cultures and all situations for the gospel to go out. What I am saying is that in some cultures it is. So we must be careful on either side that we don’t mandate a form or model that scripture does not.
I try and see it as simplistic as possible. Mainly, what did the Person we are to try and live like do?
1. When he spoke to a large gathering, there wasn’t any dialog between the speaker and the listener.
2. When he was speaking in a smaller setting, it was conversational.
I have a hard time grasping why there is even any debate about this. Culture? If I remember right, culture didn’t dictate to Christ how He spoke His own Gospel to people—and that time period was a smorgasbord of cultures.
However, the way Paul presented the Gospel to the Jews was much different in the way he presented it in Athens. Even then, they were pretty much monologues that began by answering a question.
Combining the thoughts of Dever, Ferguson and Mahaney, the argument for the legitimacy of monologue is compelling.
As for blogs being dialogue, relatively few readers of a blog posts actually comment. Even the most successful blogs are essentially monologues for most readers.
thanks for the post, joe. i think nat’s point is a very straightforward approach to thinking about the issue as well. it’s been amazing to me in my own church context to see the transformation of my own people through monologue preaching. the interim before me preached 15 min sermonettes. i began at around 30 min. after 5 years, i am now preaching about 40-45 min and everyone from 12 yr olds to 70 yr olds are responding positively. i believe that’s not because i am great preacher, but that the word of God i powerful when handled with humility, passion, and prayer. thanks for your blog, joe!
Great post. Yes, there should be plenty of dialogue going on within the Church and between Christians and non-Christians, outside the context of the sermon in a corporate worship service.
As you say, the sermon as monologue is normative and God promises to bless the proclamation of His Word. We can do that, and still create opportunities for dialogue. It’s a “both/and” rather than an “either/or,” but let the sermon be the sermon, and create other opportunities for give-and-take conversation.
This is a great post, and is an especially challenging topic to us pastors. I would say that I agree with the fact that monologue preaching is the way to go. However, I believe that the audience should almost feel as though they are having a dialogue with the pastor as he is preaching, without even saying anything. How do we do this? We address the questions that we have about the particular passage being taught. Also, because of our daily dialogue with the people of our community we should be able to address those questions and concerns that the people in our audience may have on this particular passage.
Preaching by means of monologue works most effectively, only if it stems from the pastor’s dialogue with his community. Thanks for this post, it was very thought provoking and challenging for this pastor.
Some great thoughts here guys. Thanks for the comments. Like I said, dialog is a necessary part of Christian ministry, but not required from the pulpit. Q&A/dialog after the “monologue” would be great though. And right on Scott. As we wrestle with the Scripture, ask it questions and preach it to ourselves, it still must “stem from the pastor’s dialogue with his community.” Good words.
Joe:
Well said. ‘Thus says the Lord’ still communicates. I have witnessed not only a hunger in younger adults for such preaching, but a great displeasure when it is missing. This is true of teens as well as 20somethings. What it seems to me they cannot take is when the preacher comes off as arrogant, rather than a humble man of God who preaches boldly because his confidence is in the Word and not his eloquence. Honest, humble, and bold preaching will always communicate. Certainly we must contextualize, but we can do so without compromise.
Very good words. Thanks for chiming in Alvin!
Not sure if this thread will be active or not still but…
Nat
Where do you get that there was no dialogue between Jesus and those he spoke to, even in a larger context?