Avery T. Willis

Have you ever read a book that makes a convincing argument against your core convictions? Truth That Sticks is that book for me.

As a minister of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, I whole-heartedly affirm the truthfulness of the Bible. I believe it is truth without any mixture of error. But I would make a statement going beyond my affirmation of the Bible's inerrancy; I believe the Bible is sufficient. By that, I mean that Word of God has its effect and stands on its own. It does not require my clever or creative presentation to somehow make it relevant. The truthfulness and spirituality of the Bible surpass the concept of cultural relevance!

Avery Willis and Mark Snowden are men that would presumably affirm the inerrancy of Scripture as well. They may also affirm the sufficiency of Scripture, but in Truth That Sticks, they make a case for orality that would cause me to question that affirmation.

Willis and Snowden make an iron-clad case for orality as the primary or preferred learning style of most people. By contrast, most churches teach from a more literary style, which does not appeal to the oral-preferenced masses. As such, they propose a system of transferring Biblical truth through "storying." This methodology requires a leader who will faithfully present the truth of a biblical narrative in a conversational way. They stress the importance of the story being faithful to the text of Scripture. They answer objections (by citing anecdotes mostly) to those who would question if this waters down trust in the Bible or if stories get distorted in the telling.

As you probably can tell, I'm not fully convinced. Though, I must admit that I am still mulling over the concepts and am willing to try them. (I am currently testing this in my church's small groups as well teach through 1 Samuel. They early results are positive.)

Here are my concerns about Willis and Snowden's arguments:

1. Their arguments sometimes seem to undermine a view of the sufficiency of Scripture. They write, "God's truth is in the story, but you have to gently open it up with questions to make it come alive for the group. When we use good questions, ordinary participants often come up with insights that even the commentaries leave out" (69). What do they mean by God's truth is "in the story"? While I believe the authors to be theologically conservative, this statement frightens me. It sounds a lot like the early liberal theologians that said Scripture contained truth and that we must remove the husk and get to the kernel. If their argument is that we can help draw out discussion and insight among group members by asking good questions, I whole-heartedly agree. If they are arguing that sharing the Scripture via a story somehow makes it have a life that it would otherwise lack, I fiercely object. At best, this is a poorly worded statement.

2. Is orality the prescribed Biblical methodology? They argue that Scripture was transmitted orally early on in the Old Testament period. They write, "Yet I can find only three times in the Bible when God or Jesus wrote anything: the Ten Commandments, the handwriting on the wall in Daniel, and when Jesus wrote in the sand in fro of the woman caught in adultery" (37). While they don't fully flesh out this train of thought, the implication seems to be that because God didn't write more often, He preferred orality over literary communication. This argument does not give enough weight to the fact that God inspired the writing of His Word. Galatians 4:4 tells us, "Yet in the fullness of time had come, God sent forth his Son." God sovereignly knew that He was sending forth Jesus in a time when the events could not be captured on film or with audio recording equipment - the best ways to tell story! He sent forth Christ when it would be recorded by hand, in written form. Since God sent Christ in that time, it seems best to teach from His Word. In fairness to the authors, they do affirm that people who can read should read Scripture. "Should you use Bible storying exclusively? Probably not with people who read well. in fact, the storying process causes people to want to study the Bible more. For most of us in America, these two approaches are more like the two blades of scissors: One is more effective when used with the other" (177).

3. Do they inadvertently undermine preaching? First Corinthians 1:21 tells us that God has ordained preaching as the means to save souls. They seem to think that preaching is methodologically inferior.

4. How do you story prophecy or an epistle? While huge chunks of Scripture are narrative and lend themselves easily to the storying methodology, other books are letters and prophetic writings that don't seem to naturally lend themselves to the storying methodology? Should those sections be ignored? They do cite one church that storied Galatians, but they did so by appealing to the book of Acts (narrative). I think this is the glaring deficiency of using only this methodology. The epistles are there to build up the body of Christ. No part of Scripture should be ignored!

While these questions are not the only ones Truth That Sticks raises in my mind, they do help the reader see some of the issues I am working through. In fairness, this book has some incredibly redeeming qualities (thus the 4 star rating). These include the emphasis on multiplication, the strong argument about the American culture being oral-preference learners, the emphasis on training leaders, their understanding of how to shape worldviews, and the many helpful nuggets on how to facilitate a small group through good questions.

In my mind, the jury is still out on the storying approach. I am cautiously optimistic, but for now, I'll wait and see. The authors write, "One very inuring phenomenon occurs among people who can read but prefer not to. When they hear a Bible story told and engage the truth in dialogue, they study their Bibles more" (109). To my thinking, this would be ultimate success! If I see this happen in our LifeGroups, I will be sold 100% on the storying methodology as part of how we disciple people at Crossroads.

In the mean time, I think you should read Truth That Sticks. Don't miss the inherent irony of two noted authors and authorities on orality writing a book! If nothing else, reading Truth That Sticks made me think. I like to read books that articulately challenge my presuppositions. If my core convictions can't withstand articulate challenges, then they aren't very sturdy! Thanks to Avery Willis and Mark Snowden for their excellent work and their commitment to missions!… (meer)