I guess the term "verse by verse" is bothersome to me, since verses do not represent isolated thoughts or ideas, but are only reference points inserted into the text after the printing press was invented. Theologically, a "verse by verse" study of the Bible, separating each verse from the text as a whole, leads to major misinterpretations.
I think effective Bible study which produces an understanding of God that leads to a relationship with Him through Christ must be expository, but "verse by verse" or even "book by book" is not a good expository approach. Rather, taking the gospel accounts of Christ's teachings, as a whole, and understanding the context of the concepts there, should be the starting point, since everything else in the Bible points there. Other books, then, taken as a whole, can be studied in their proper context. I don't believe you can properly interpret the things that Paul, or John, or Peter, or any other Biblical writer, wrote without making them subject to the teachings of Christ in the gospels.
What constitutes "weakness" in the church in America today? I'm not sure I would use that term to describe it. I am sensing, in some of the direction of this thread, a criticism of churches which take a more contemporary approach to the presentation of the gospel through being "seeker sensitive". The implication is that many churches aren't "preaching the gospel." I think that is a false impression. Christ didn't come to condemn the world, because it was already condemned. He came to save it. That should be the focus of the message of the church. Pounding pulpits and screeching about pure doctrine and taking stands against sin doesn't produce effective disciples of Jesus who can carry out the great commission. We all know John 3:16 by heart, but we forget that it is followed by John 3:17 and 18.
The days of spectator congregations sitting in rows of pews singing hymns written two generations ago out of a book, passively listening to choir specials, soloists and a preacher who can master the art of speaking in a cadence and calling that "worship" are over. Look around. Within a mile radius of my house there are a dozen Baptist congregations of various stripes, along with at least that many of other denominations, and the vast majority of them are emptying out fairly rapidly as their aging membership passes on out of this life. There are, however at least two or three churches that are thriving, whose baptistries are filled with a continuous stream of people coming to know Christ and who are then being motivated to serve in His body by ministries that take place out in the community, not penned in by church walls, and designed around the spiritual gifts of the participants. Worship is focused upward, on praise toward God and receiving something from God, not just sitting and listening to a preacher and a choir. It is an active experience where all the senses are involved, and where all the members are active, not passive. It may be hard for some people bound by tradition to accept, but I think God is raising up churches who are effectively planting the seeds of the Gospel in the hearts of the younger generation.
The idea that this is some kind of "weakness" may simply be someone's resentment of the fact that others are using different methods to reach people for Christ, and appear to be successful at it. Jesus' own disciples once tried to stop some people from preaching Christ because they weren't part of the group.
