Thanks for your thoughtful comment. I appreciate you taking the time to engage in the conversation rather than throwing out accusations of being opposed to preaching!

I have a hard time using an OT passage to support the practice of the church, especially given the change of the priesthood from the model used under the Old Covenant versus the High Priesthood of Christ as mediator of the New Covenant. Elders/pastors are not a set apart priestly class that is apart from and above the rest of the church. Likewise Jesus was a bit unique in terms of His earthly ministry. Finally there is a world of difference between a one time reading of a special letter from an apostle to the church (and again how this occured and who did the reading is unclear) and a week after week monologue.

I understand the idea of the people responding in worship but I reject the notion that an overseer has a special role as mouthpiece of God based on where he stands in a building and the day he is doing so. We just don't see a highly regulated, ritualistic liturgy like what you are describing anywhere in Scripture unless we come to the Word with that preconceived notion already in place. For most Christians in most churches, what you call a dialogue with God is them sitting in silence except when directed to sing a particular song or perhaps to parrot back a responsive reading. Any other participation by a brother in the local body is not permitted and given the constraints of the "worship service" in terms of time and culture, most Christians cannot even imagine gathering where there active, real participation is not only permitted but welcome.

First, there is OT precedent for public reading and interpretation of scripture. Ezra read the book of the Law of Moses to the people on a platform made specifically for this act of proclamation (Neh 8:1-4). This happened in the context of worship (8:6) and it included not only reading but explanation and interpretation so that the people would understand what they heard (8:8). This certainly appears to be in the form of a monologue, though in the context of responsive worship.

Second, Matthew certainly portrays Jesus as giving monologic addresses. These five speeches are addressed to his followers and to the people of God in general. Regardless of whether these are speech-form summaries of Jesus' teachings, Matthew certainly intends his audience to see that Jesus was a preacher.

Third, most of the epistles in the New Testament are basically monologues. Take Romans, for example, which was likely carried to Rome by the deaconess Phoebe who also may have been the one to deliver it orally to the gathered church in Rome. All of Paul's letters were basically "preached" as monologues when they were initially received by the recipient churches. Likewise, Hebrews and James appear to be basically monologue sermons. Indeed, others have observed that Hebrews is basically an exposition of several passages from the Psalms.

Let me say in conclusion that the sermon you criticize as a monologue is actually one element in a larger conversation that is itself the worship service. God addresses the people (through an overseer of the church) in the call to worship. The people respond with an act of worship (e.g. a creed, prayer, hymn). God speaks to the people through the reading of scripture and through its explanation in sermon form. The people respond with another act of worship. God concludes the conversation with the benediction. So, you see, the entire worship service can be viewed as one conversation between God and his people in which he speaks and they respond. The sermon is not so much a monologue as it is a part of a larger conversation between God and his people.

Perhaps these comments will spur further thought and conversation.

Matt O'Reilly

I am aghast that engaging comment on this article – as positive as civil dialogue itself is – seeks to argue against the presence of ‘preaching’ in the NT.

No one is arguing against the presence of 'preaching' in the NT. What is being questioned is if the preaching being spoken of is what we understand it (a sermon to believers) or as I would argue when the Nt speaks of preaching it is referencing proclaiming the Gospel to the lost. Most of us have been culturally conditioned by our traditions to read "preaching" and picture "pastor in the pulpit on Sunday morning delivering a sermon" when that is clearly not what is being spoken of in Scripture.

I think that is a great model and a far more Biblical one than show up at 11, sing a few songs, put your money in the plate, listen to a sermon and then go home. I would like to see more men doing the primary sermon time but other than that I think you have a great model!

My overarching point is that we have created an entire dogma regarding sermons to the point that we call them a means of grace as Luke points out and any questioning of the sermon as the central feauture of the gathering of the church is going to get a visceral response. I have no issue with the occasional or even regular use of monologue sermons in the gathering of the chuch, provided that it is not the exclusive means of edification and that it is not restricted to one man to the exclusion of the rest of the Body.

I would point out that not only do we have example of dialogue and none of traditional sermons, we also have a number of principles that emphasize the "one another" aspect of the church gathering. One man perpetually doing all of the teaching while everyone else listens is not a "one another" model, it is a "one and all the others" model and that is what I object to. I would point to 1 Corinthians 14, esp. 1 Cor 14:26 and Hebrews 10:24-25 as places where we see mutuality in the church (edification, encouragement, exhortation) as the key principle and I would further argue that the model of church that we have carried forward from pre-Reformation Roman pratice by its very nature hampers those principles.

You would likely be surprised by just how much we probably share in theology, it is the practice of the church that I find myself at odds with my fellow Reformed believers. You might also be surprised to find out that there are lots of brothers like me who hold firmly to the great doctrines of sovereign grace and yet question traditional church practices.

FWIW, he addressed Philippians “to all the saints . . . together with the overseers and deacons.” You probably already knew that, but I noticed you left it off your list.

I did know that. I think it is interesting, given our cultural understanding of the church, that this is the only place we see that and he seems to be adding "overseers and deacons" after addressing it to the church as a whole. With as much emphasis as we place on the leadership of the church, Paul seems to be directing his instruction to the church as a whole rather than to those leaders to then pass on to the people.

Question: Do you understand “able to teach” in 1 Tim. 3:2 to mean “able to facilitate discussion?”

Not necessarily but being able to faciliate discussion is certainly a way of teaching. There are a lot of ways to teach and sometimes monologue is the appropriate way but it certainly is not the exclusive way. Do you understand it to mean "able to prepare and deliver a forty minute sermon"?