Understand Progressional Dialogue
I was surprised at the brevity of this chapter because I was hoping that I would be offered a greater understanding of progressional dialogue. Maybe that's typical of the mindset that we have been raised in-a box for everything, and everything in a box. Maybe my thoughts of progressional dialogue are to complex. Maybe it's much simpler than that.
This past Sunday I tried to offer the sermon through progressional dialogue. I started with a question, thrown out to everyone, about what they new about a person. People started responding and on occasion someone would take a comment in a different direction, but people would just roll with it. I did take time to expound things or seek clarity from the group and there were times when I was able to offer a directional understanding to the topic. Overall I felt very positive about it. I think that others felt that way, too.
Here's a quote from the chapter:
I think the attempt to try progressional dialogue is much easier for me because I haven't been through years of theological training. I don't have any degree in theo-anything. I got "B's" in high school Bible class. I continually question my understanding of the Bible and it's relationship within the context of a community of followers of Christ. There are many times in which I want to hear someone else's perspective on a particular passage or theme and this form of preaching allows that opportunity.
Doug often alludes to the Bible as becoming an member of the community. I like this imagery. I think that this places the Bible in the place of an active, living member of the community. Just in case I need to clarify, I'm not suggesting that we lower our expectation of GOD's Word to the place of a person who is casually attending the gatherings. I have the highest regard for the Scriptures because it has sustained thousands of years of Jewish and Christian history. That's something more than any of us can say.
This past Sunday I tried to offer the sermon through progressional dialogue. I started with a question, thrown out to everyone, about what they new about a person. People started responding and on occasion someone would take a comment in a different direction, but people would just roll with it. I did take time to expound things or seek clarity from the group and there were times when I was able to offer a directional understanding to the topic. Overall I felt very positive about it. I think that others felt that way, too.
Here's a quote from the chapter:
As pastors we spend years in theological training to make sure we know what we're talking about and that we're informed, educated leaders who won't toss out crazy ideas about GOD to the masses.
I think the attempt to try progressional dialogue is much easier for me because I haven't been through years of theological training. I don't have any degree in theo-anything. I got "B's" in high school Bible class. I continually question my understanding of the Bible and it's relationship within the context of a community of followers of Christ. There are many times in which I want to hear someone else's perspective on a particular passage or theme and this form of preaching allows that opportunity.
Doug often alludes to the Bible as becoming an member of the community. I like this imagery. I think that this places the Bible in the place of an active, living member of the community. Just in case I need to clarify, I'm not suggesting that we lower our expectation of GOD's Word to the place of a person who is casually attending the gatherings. I have the highest regard for the Scriptures because it has sustained thousands of years of Jewish and Christian history. That's something more than any of us can say.
2 comments:
i don't have a ton to respond to on this one. i did like the way sunday went. everyone seemed to have a good amount of input, and i heard some things i wouldn't have thought of, or i know i wouldn't have heard if it had been a "traditional" sermon.
what do you mean professional dialogue?
I was trying to find out if "professional" was your typo or mine. If it was mine I meant to use the word "progressional." If it was your typo: progressional dialogue is a term that the author coined and uses as the positive alternative to 'speaching.' Doug has never put a solid definition to the word. Mostly, I believe, because he is a story teller and a poet. His words offer images.
He wrote this: "Speaching stands in contrast to what I call progressional dialogue, where the content of the presentation is established in the context of a healthy relationship between the presenter and the listeners, and substantive changes in the content are then created as a result of this relationship."
I guess that counts as a definition. I hope that helps.
Post a Comment