Interesting discussion going on over at the 9Marks blog between Michael Mckinley and Steve Timmis, one of the co-authors of Total Church. Most of you who read this blog know that I was a huge fan of Total Church after reading it recently. Their discussion revolves around style of preaching. Is there a place for preaching that is not simply a monologue?
As I have been thinking about my personal style of learning and how I best retain and grow from information received, I think the Total Church guys might be on to something here. On the other hand, it seems that the majority of Biblical examples of preaching are found to be in a monologue style. To be fair, Steve Timmis is clear to note that he preaches in an authoritative monologue style every week, but what is allowed to happen around this event is different than most churches. More questions and give and take surrounding the point of the text.
My sense is that both camps (if we can call them camps) have very similar goals (faithfulness to the text, good communication, passion for discipleship, gospel centered, etc), yet have different ways to achieve these goals that are probably within the bounds of our church freedom.
I don't think this is an issue we should get all up in a bunch over, but I think it is helpful for church leaders to think through why they do what they do and what is most effective for discipleship.
What do you think?
5 comments:
There was a weekend where I really wanted to just get up and ask a question about the sermon. It definitely would have interrupted the service (especially since it was being recorded for Sunday morning), but I really wanted to hear what my pastor had to say about this thing which seemed to obvious to me, but he had completely passed over. That said, it wouldn't have been appropriate for me to ask right then.
However, if I don't have a place where I can get those questions answered (i.e. asking him after the service, discussing with friends, in a small group, etc.) then I think something needs to change.
The two examples I know of are two ends of the spectrum.
Doug Pagitt at Solomon's Porch "preaches" in a very conversational style with open dialogue and other points of view represented, but he does this while throwing truth and theology out the window.
Mark Driscoll usually preaches for about 50 minutes, then answers questions that have been text messaged in during the sermon.
I think there's room for feedback and discussion, but it has to be done with great care and intentionality.
I'm no expert on the practices of the early church, but it occurs to me that two of the prevailing forms of education present in Jerusalem at the time would have been the Jewish system (the rabbinic tradition) as well as the Socratic system (teacher-student dialectic). It seems that both of those converge on the same sort of thing.
Take for example Jesus' own preaching. He primarily starts with some very concrete thing (a healing, a dispute, etc.) and then begins to expound on how it relates to His Messianic paradigm. Often, in the rabbinic (and possibly even the dialectic) tradition, his followers and detractors both stick around, either to learn or to contest him. It is interesting as well that he keep close company with such disparate groups as "sinners", Pharisees (religious conservatives) and Sadducees (religious liberals). It would seem that Jesus' teaching focused on something more akin to a pointed dialectic at a broad (and often incorrect) audience of participants.
Great discussion. So much of it depends on one's view of preaching. How does one go about defining preaching? Well, I would argue that preaching is by definition not a monologue but a proclamation, and it is taking into account the prophetic tradition. My definition of preaching (which relies heavily upon the Reformed tradition) also connects with the Reformed understanding of minister speaking in the place of Christ for the people of God. So significant is that moment of proclamation, the Second Helvetic Confession says, “The Preaching of the Word of God is the Word of God." You can see a more extended reflection on this here (as well as a sermon I preached on it):
http://www.inlightofthegospel.org/?p=2502
So if my definition of preaching is close to proclamation, then I will not call a dialogue "preaching." That doesn't deny the place of dialogue; it is most important. But the argument is that preaching is not both things.
Also bound up with one's definition of preaching is what the content of preaching should be, and this goes down the road of Christ-centered preaching verses a more moralistic/counseling approach that is strongly application oriented. The latter is more appropriate to a dialogue because we need to flesh out stuff together in terms of the way we obey and live. But the former doesn't work as a dialogue because you are proclaiming the mighty acts of God within the work of redemption, and tying those things together.
Another issue (last one I will mention, I promise) concerns one's view of worship. When worship is conceived the way that it is in Total Church, then a dialogue is often more appropriate. But when worship is conceived as a Divine Service, closer to the traditional form of worship, then you already have a dialogical principle taking place through worship, and the preaching, at that point, plays a specific role in terms of God's voice.
Anyway, just my perspective as we consider preaching in the broader perspective of the church. It really has more to do with one's picture of the "total church" if you will :)
James
So far I think Steve is doing a fine job of presenting his case. "Principled pragmatism" sounds a lot like "wisdom." A lot of this discourse takes us back to form vs. function. The Bible often prescribes function without dictating form and it is too easy to fall back on tradition for the latter. (Not that the specific tradition is necessarily wrong in this case.)
I'm looking forward to your comments on the next installment on leadership. "...if you are too big to know the members of your congregation then you are too big" is still ringing in my ears. I don't think the answer is as simple as "break up large churches," but it does speak to how we relate (or don't!) as a body.
Post a Comment