I am not sure if I care all that much, but since you have made a confident assertion that the historical record shows something quite different could you give some example or citations that would evidence that conclusion?

I do not have the time to do my own in depth study on this topic, but if you are a scholar who already has had time to delve into this or if you have read some good material on this, I would love to be pointed in that direction.

I read both Pagan Christianity and Total Church, and in my opinion it seems somewhat careless to lump these two books into the same camp together. These books might touch on similar subject matter in some ways, but they are headed in what seems to be a very different trajectory. Even the attitude that comes through in Barna/Viola is not, in my opinion, at all the same as Chester/Timmis.

I love the word, preaching, the gospel, and the rich heritage of theology in the reformed tradition. I appreciate the stuff you are writing, but it seems like people are quick to focus in on a few weakness in book reviews that will turn people away from something that might stir up some good things.

The celeb mentality of many churches and their preachers does not seem like the best thing for the church overall. I love listening to guys like Piper and the rest, but you end up with people thinking that is what everyone should be doing.

To reconsider how we even approach expository preaching may not be a bad thing. I am with John Stott (Living Church) when he calls for us to not throw out these things, but I don’t really think that it is the heart of Tim or Steve to throw out sermons or buildings -they make that clear in much of the stuff I have heard them on.

Perhaps that does not come through strong enough in the book, I’m not sure. But I know that I would not embrace the attitude of Viola etc, but I have been blessed by the irenic approach of Chester and Timmmis.

Thanks for the review it is actually a good one in many ways; I’m just not sure if you’re having associated the authors with the Barna/Viola type of movement was very kind to the authors or shows whether you actually have much knowledge of their ministry.

As far as Church history, I am open to learning more so please respond with some insight if you would. I also think there is room for many different ways of God building his church that still embrace a Gospel fidelity and a Biblical faithfulness.

Good to hear from you. I answered a similar question a little earlier in this thread. Hope you are doing well!

Thanks for the insightful, well-written review. I want to read this book. Do you have details on “The historical record showing otherwise” regarding monological preaching? It seems that we have tilted a bit toward monological and we could use some more dialogical emphasis combined with solid monological preaching. I think Timmis and Chester go further than that…

Garrett

“The book begins with the principles of gospel and community. I am glad the authors do not collapse these two principles into one. They rightly see the gospel as a proclamation.”

Do the authors see the church community itself as an integral part of this proclamation, or just a “context” for evangelism?

Thanks for a thought-provoking book, and thanks for passing along that blog post. I appreciate your book and your ministry.

http://timchester.wordpress.com/2008/11/26/pagan-christianity/

I have not done extensive study on this topic, and would probably agree that the model we use today has been developed over time and is not 100% like the model of the earliest Christians. But the leader of the gathering exhorting the flock can already be found in Scripture. (Think Jesus on the Mount, Paul in Acts, etc.). The monologue style of preaching seems to provide the backdrop of Paul’s exhortations to Timothy regarding proclamation, and it also explains books like Hebrews – which many scholars believe to be an actual sermon.

About the “monologue sermon,” I am currently in an e-mail dialogue with an elder from my church on this very subject. You write that the authors of Total Church assert that the “sermon as monologue” (or vice versa) model was invented after Constantine. The man with whom I am conversing contends that the monologue model for preaching slowly started before the Reformation, around Wycliffe’s time. He further states that the idea that Western Christians have of “preaching= monologue-style sermons” is not a Biblical one. He says that true Biblical preaching would actually use a variety of forms and methods.

It is a bit intimidating for me to dialogue on this subject with the elder, as he has vastly more Biblical and theological training than I do. However, he is an elder in our church, which as a “9 Marks-friendly” church, theoretically holds to the importance of expositional preaching as the very first mark of a healthy church! I have been surprised to hear of his views on the subject and am not sure how to answer him. Can you point me to some information as to the Biblical basis for monologue-style preaching and the historical origin of such preaching? Thank you, brother!