For instance, 2 Tim 4:2- “preach the word, … reprove, rebuke, and exhort, with complete patience and teaching.” Before that, Paul says he “charges” Timothy by Jesus and the resurrection itself, which is pretty strong.

So I think from verse like that it is hard to take out dialogue in a two-way conversation method. And the context is about preaching to Christians, not specifically evangelism. So I think I would agree with Chandler that if your main method for teaching comes from dialogue of many people and not from teaching and preaching the Word, it would be hard to say you are obeying that command of 2 Timothy 4:2, in my opinion.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I am all for dialogue as a way of learning and growing as Christians/the Church. However, if you only have dialogue without a base of absolute truth rooted in the Bible, where correction and rebuke are brought from, then that is not the dialogue that can help, I would think. And as pastors/preachers/teachers, it would seem we have to also find a way to obey 2 Tim 4:2.

BTW .. Jesus or Paul never exegeted the Scriptures in the same way we do today. I’m afraid they’d garner a failing grade in our homiletics courses. What does that say?

What’s frustrating about that quote is the assumption that our teaching methodologies are “acultural” and set in stone for all times. Why is our current forms of teaching (preaching) held up as THE way to communicate God’s truth? Jesus told farm stories, the OT was passed on via stories via oral tradition until eventually it was written down, Paul contextualized his methods based upon his audience and yet today if we veer from preaching expositionally we’re viewed as having a low view of Scripture? That’s a rather myopic view of teaching methodologies.