The first post examines the emphasis placed on 2 Timothy 4:2 in defense of the modern practice of monologue speeches given by leaders (pastors, elders, bishops) to the church. The second post examines some of the scriptural evidence for dialogue.
In the first article, the author writes:
It seems to me that Paul is telling Timothy to be ready to proclaim the message in any situation he finds himself in.Â Be ready to do it by convincing people, rebuking and encouraging.Â To proclaim it with patience in teaching.Â I donâ€™t know that it fits as well to say that Paul is telling Timothy to be ready at all times to engage in a 30 minute exposition of scripture to a quiet audience.
In the second article, the author says:
If we cross reference this with Lukeâ€™s account in Acts 17 we find that Paul â€œreasonedâ€ or â€œarguedâ€ with the people in the synagogue. The word used is dialogomai and it has a range of meanings from â€œdiscussâ€ and â€œargueâ€ all the way to â€œaddress.â€ The meaning is determined by the context. In a typical gathering at a Synagogue the scriptures are read and someone offers their exhortation and commentary after the scripture reading. Initially Paul likely engaged with some form of monologue but it was also likely that the Jews would have questioned and eventually objected to what Paul was saying. In the end they ran him out of town and even travelled to the next town to do it again there. It isnâ€™t hard to see where Luke might have got the idea that there was some arguing or disputing going on.
Both articles are well-written, and they are written in response to two well-known theologians who are defending modern forms of preaching (as the only valid method of teaching the church).
As I continue to think about these issues, I’m hoping to prepare another short post about preaching and teaching, monologue and dialogue.