The modern rhetorical sermon is at once both effective and ineffective. It is effective in that it usually does what it is intended to do quite well. It is intended to be a convincing and commanding argument that persuades its listener to certain actions or convinces its listener of certain truths. In the hands of a skillful and powerful orator, the rhetorical sermon is very effective at accomplishing its mission. It is ineffective in that it does little to foster spiritual maturity a deeper grasp of Scripture in its listeners.
Instead of the rhetorical sermon, Michael suggests discussion as a means of teaching and discipleship during the church meeting (see his post “How We Do Church: Discussion, the Fast Track to Ministry“).
So, what do you think? Which is more effective in helping people grow toward maturity in Christ: monologue, dialogue, a combination, something else?
(HT: Dave Black)