We don't participate in Christian communities so we can produce and hear great sermons. We take part in the communities because we believe they're where we're formed and shaped to become the people of GOD-people who are actively living in the kingdom.
I really like his use of the word participate-as if each person is needed. Many of the churches I've been to (whether a part of the congregation or visiting) have left me with the feeling that it would be no different if I had never walked through their doors. I've always wanted Satellite to be a place where people could be involved. I feel like we (not just me) did this fairly well. I think one of the things that helped this was that the core people within the community were very welcoming.
On to a few core definitions that Doug starts to use.
The first is SPEACHING. Doug makes an important distinction between preaching and speaching. The difference is found in the "relationship of the presenter to both the listeners and the content:..." As I was reading this I realized that Doug wasn't trying to do away with preaching, but he is calling us to something more than what it has been left to. I'll continue the last quote "...the pastor uses lecture-like format, often standing while the listeners are sitting. The speacher decides the content ahead of time, usually in a removed setting, and then offers it in such a way that the speacher is in control of th econtent, speed, and conclusion of the presentation."
Doug's challenge to speaching is with, what he has coined as PROGRESSIONAL DIALOGUE. Progressional Dialogue is defined in the context where "the content of the presentation is established in the context of a healthy relationship between the presenter and the listeners, and the substantive changes in the content are then created as a result of the relationship." Progressional Dialogue is a stark contrast to Speaching.
This section is the longest section in the book. I think that this is in part because Doug is trying to show the need to step away from speaching. He lists 5 negative effects that speaching has on a community of faith: Creates one seat of Godly authority, Provides one clear message, Offers a sense of control, Reinforces a particular kind of relationship with the Bible, and Reinforces a particular kind of relationship between pastor and congregation. Doug uses the 5 effect to show that speaching cultivates a separation between the pastor and the community, and that the pastors understanding of the Word is the most important. One sentence that resonated with me is found just before he starts to lists the 5 effects. Doug wrote that "we continue to stand in front of our congregations and offer them our well-crafted speeches, hoping that somehow they'll find meaning in our words." This spoke to me because I've always struggled with my ability to craft a sermon. I feel inadequate in preparing a sermon. I haven't been through seminary. I haven't even taken a homiletics class. I do realize, though, that this might by why the people who have been a part of Satellite have continued with us. And perhaps why other people have not stayed with us. Some people are looking for "well-crafted" sermons with three points and colorful illustrations. That's not me.
To contrast the negative effects of speaching on a community, Doug offers the following "practices" of progressional dialogue: Re-imagined preparation, Delivery, and Listening. He also lists his assumptions of progressional dialogue: Assumes GOD's truth resides in all people, Provides a fuller understanding of the story, Shifts control to GOD, Alters the community's relationship with the Bible, Alters the relationship between pastor and congregation.
I'm excited to get into the rest of the book. I feel like Doug has done a good job of showing the need for a change in preaching. I'm sure that the rest of the book leads into expounding on the practices and assumptions of progressional dialogue. I'll leave you with a short paragraph from this section that I really like.
Because we've been wed to speaching for so long, we've trained our communities to respond to our speeches by asking themselves, How does this apply to me? as though the Word of GOD is some topical ointment. More often than not the will come up with some generic application-- be nice to my neighbors, be honest in my relationships, and so on. But is that really the best we can offer our communities?
I hope not.
3 comments:
wow. that last quote really resonates, doesn't it? i've always sort of shut off when we'll be discussing something like, say, the book of joel, or micah, or some minor prophet, and someone will say, "i find in my life, yadda yadda," and i've always sort of rejected people who say, "this applies to me because, yadda yadda." i don't know why i do, and i'm not sure how much of it is related to what the author has said, but i suspect it is in some way related.
in the book i'm reading, it discussed the immaculate and complex nature with which the 18th and 19th century speakers constructed their sermons, and how the likes of billy graham are intellectual lightweights in comparison. i thought that was funny.
I enjoyed our discussion last night. I thought I might put a few of those comments up here in case anyone else has some thoughts.
You asked about "how we step away from thinking about the Bible as a 'topical ointment?'" I responded that the "how does this apply to my life" approach is a self-centered approach to the Bible. Asking those questions lead us to think that the Bible is written for me. (Watch out, they're grabbing stones.) Western Christianity has brought us to a place where we feel like we are able to cut and paste our name in place of every person through the Bible. We've been taught about the sin of adultery through the sin of David and Bathsheba, so when we read the story we put our names in place of David AS IF THE EVENT HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH OUR LIFE.
The reality is that the Bible was written before I was born and exist outside of myself. The Bible doesn't have anything to do with me. Wait, that feels a little blasphemous. Lord have mercy. I think the way to take ourselves out of the stories is by asking the questions what is going on here with regards to the meta-narrative of the Bible.
[stepping down from the soapbox]
this is like trying to imagine what a cat sees. i understand what you're saying, as how i understand what a cat sees, but i can no more imagine how to do what you say than i can imagine what a cat sees.
it's like when you're trying to learn how to worship, and people will tell you all sorts of things ranging from practical, to too practical, to a little ridiculous, and back again. sure, i guess it sounds good, but until i get down there and get dirty and probably get a little angry and frustrated, it won't make sense.
Post a Comment