Over the years I’ve taught preaching in university courses and mentored a number of preaching apprentices and preachers-in-training. This series summarizes some of the most basic yet most useful preaching points I’ve emphasized in these settings.
I hope you’ll join the fantastic Jim Martin and me as we teach “Preaching That Connects” at Harding School of Theology (Memphis, TN) Feb. 28-Mar. 7, 2013. This D. Min. course promises to be practical and inspiring.
Preaching Point #18: The Community Factor – Preaching can increase its impact by being prepared and presented in ways that utilize and build community.
Community is highly valued in our culture. Postmoderns are relational. There is an increasing focus up on our interdependence and our need for networks of relationships.
Community is also highly valued in our Gospel. God is one in three. God exists in community. God’s very essence is community. In addition, God created for community (Gen. 1-2). He embeded community (Adam and Eve) into creation. Further, God’s mission has always involved the formation of a community not simply a collection of individuals (e.g., the formation of Israel, the establishment of the church). In addition, Jesus conducted his ministry in community not in isolation (hence his selection of the Twelve). And, the Gospel was intended to create community and tear down the barriers and walls which isolate us from one another (e.g., Ephesians 1-3 and the power of the Gospel to unite Jew and Gentile).
How might preaching help create community? Here are a couple of examples from the literature. First, Doug Pagitt in his Preaching Re-Imagined: The Role of the Sermon in Communities of Faith (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2005) critiques a specific form of preaching which he calls “speaching.” Speaching (preaching + speech-making) is the kind of preaching with which many of us are familiar—one-way communication where an individual controls the sermon content and delivery. Pagitt argues that speaching is based on the idea that there are an elite few who know God’s truth (that is, since the preacher is the only one talking, he/she must be the only one with knowledge of God). It also assumes that one person is capable of fully understanding and explaining the complexities of God’s word to a diverse group (e.g., it assumes a married white male preacher adequately understands the implications of a text for a divorced black female congregant). Finally, speaching ignores the importance of the preacher’s relationship with the congregation (that is, the fact that the same sermon could be preached to different congregations suggests it was not shaped significantly by the preacher’s relationship with one congregation).
Pagitt argues that preaching should transform into “progressional dialogue” where communication is two-way and the congregation contributes to the content of the sermon. In this model, church members dialogue with the preacher during sermon preparation regarding their understanding of the text’s implications. They also dialogue with the preacher during the sermon presentation. Progressional dialogue assumes that all of God’s people can contribute to the understanding of God’ truth (and thus invites them to be part of the preparation and delivery). It creates a context where the congregation arrives together at a fuller understanding of Scripture. Finally, it prioritizes the relationship between the preacher and the congregation (that is, the two become partners in creating and delivering the sermon).
Another example from the literature comes from Brian Lowery (“Sharing the Driver’s Seat,” Leadership (Spring, 2008), 45-57). Lowry examined the sermon preparation process for New Life Community Church in Chicago. The church has nine sites and nine preachers (five main teaching pastors) who teach in two languages (English and Spanish). Sixteen staff gather each Monday to craft the sermon that will be preached at all nine sites that Sunday. The Monday prior each staff member is given basic exegetical guides to study for the next Monday session. For each session one of the five main teaching pastors has responsibility for “driving” the sermon outline. The others recommend changes, additions, revisions, etc. Each pitch in with ideas for application, illustration, etc. The “driver” takes notes and sends out a revised outline later in the week. Each will tweak the sermon to fit his specific congregation.
With these examples in mind, I’ll propose three ways of making preaching more communal than individual. First, preparation can be re-imagined to make preaching more communal. For example, relational contacts with individuals in the congregation during the week act as informal conversation regarding needs, questions, issues which impact preaching. By allowing what you learn in relationship with congregational members to inform your preaching, you move from making yourself the sole source for sermon formation to allowing the congregation to become a source for sermon formation. In addition, an imagined community of congregants and possible guests which you hold mentally before you as you prepare a sermon allows this virtual community to help inform the sermon. further, having a specific group of live congregants and guests who process questions regarding upcoming series can enlarge the pool from which the sermon comes. I have a group I email regarding each series asking their input on specific questions. And, have a specific group of live congregants and guests who process questions regarding each upcoming sermon. One example of this would be a group the preacher meets with weekly to practice group Lectio Divina on the text.
Second, delivery can be re-imagined to make preaching more communal. For example, ask those present to engage with the material and the preacher in brief and “safe” ways such as raising hands, saying “Amen,” etc. Software is available which allows congregants to email and/or text during a sermon to indicate their “vote” on a poll which is part of a sermon or to indicate insights/questions regarding the sermon itself. Or, ask those present to engage with the material and with each other during the sermon. For example, John Ortberg preached a sermon in which he asked listeners to turn to the person next to them and guess whether the depressionrate had increased or decreased since WW2. In a sermon on fear I asked listeners to turn to the person next to them and share which of the nine most common fears they have. Or, ask those present to engage with the material and the preacher in prolonged conversation as a part of the sermon (e.g., Doug Paigitt’s progressional dialogue).
Finally, preachers can use follow-up strategies to make preaching more communal. They can seek feedback in different ways from listeners. I have often asked listeners to email me with questions/comments/insights that stemmed from the sermon and we thus continue the dialogue by email during the week.
How about you? How do you make your preaching more communal?
Great thoughts. I really liked what Brady Bryce did with ACU Summit a couple years ago – and maybe he’s still doing this: have listeners submit a text or comment via question in the midst of the speaker’s presentation, then after the presentation is over, Brady would sit down with the speaker and throw a few questions his way from the audience. I thought that was a creative way to encourage communal dialogue in such a large group setting (1000+).
One brainstorm I’ve had, though I haven’t had the opportunity to test it out with a large group, is to have a small group of people join me on stage and sit there as listeners with the rest of the congregation and along the way have opportunities for them to engage with the lesson/sermon in dialogue. Perhaps I would rotate through different groups of people over time and have the sense of live dialogue in a larger setting. It would, however, require the preacher to feel comfortable with adapting and responding to people as he/she would in a classroom setting (just in front of hundreds of people). But maybe that’s crazy. Wish I were back at Highland so I could use them as guinea pigs! 🙂
Charles,
What an intriguing idea. I’d love to see this fleshed out.
Chris
Comments are closed.