Preaching through Vicarious Conversation
I have this idea for alternative to the talking-head style of sermons: two people having a conversation about a passage of Scripture. One has to be knowledgeable about the text. This would normally be the preaching pastor. The other person acts as the congregation’s representative, making clarifications and asking follow-up questions.
It’d probably be most effective as an interview style as opposed to a debate. I can see that making people uncomfortable and unsettled.
What do you think?
kenny says:
April 18th, 2008 at 8:10 am
I think it sounds interesting, although I wonder why you would do it. It seems to suggest that the pastor doesn’t know how to teach his people, and needs help from them in figuring out what to say. Maybe this is true, but I tend to think not. I’m personally somewhat anti-democratic when it comes to things besides politics. I tend to think there’s a reason certain people are made leaders, and it’s not because it would be better if only the non-leaders could guide the leaders.
Also, this is very Emergent-esque, as they really prefer “conversations” to “sermons.”
What I’d like is for the pastor to give a message, and then for there to be Q&A time after the sermon.
jos' says:
April 18th, 2008 at 8:54 am
I almost didn’t say conversation for that reason. And you know, just because a particular group likes something doesn’t mean it’s good or bad.
It may suggest that the pastor doesn’t know how to lecture effectively. That may even be true. It could also suggest that the congregation doesn’t know how to learn from a lecture. Maybe that’s true sometimes for some people.
A Q&A time is a more direct way of the congregation voicing their questions. I’d find it helpful.
What happens in a Bible study? A good one will have a discussion guided by the leader. Maybe the group will come up with an insight that escaped the leader’s preparation, but likely they will come to conclusions already discovered by the leader. And if not a good leader will guide them to it. Or just flat out tell them what’s going down.
jos' says:
April 18th, 2008 at 8:56 am
And don’t look at my reading list in the sidebar. It’ll only depress you. I got a book on alternative worship, something called The Myth of Certainty, and the biggie, Brian McLaren.
kenny says:
April 18th, 2008 at 10:05 am
I agree that something’s not necessarily bad just because the Emergent Church does it. I just noticed that what you were suggesting sounded a lot like what they do. But I think there is a philosophical connection between the EC and a “conversation” style sermon. EC believes in decentralizing discussions of theology, so in other words theology wouldn’t come down from on high, as through a pastor in a pulpit. Instead, theology arises more organically from discussion done “in community.” So, the interview could be seen to be in this vein.
As for Bible study, I’ve basically come to feel that most of them are just exercises in pooling ignorance. As often as they come to the right conclusion, they end up in a theological ditch. The EC, on the other hand, and others too, think that you need everybody’s perspective to get a full account of truth.
I am depressed about the EC’s rising influence, but it may turn out that I’ve gotten them all wrong. There’s certainly something in the Zeitgeist that requires engaging them.
But at a practical level you may be right that the pastor simply isn’t great at lecturing/teaching. But I’d think they should teach them that in seminary, and if the guy can’t communicate effectively then maybe somebody else should do the teachin’ and preachin’.
nate says:
April 18th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
hehe….Somebody’s been listening to too much Radio Lab!
This style of teaching is very similar to Radio Lab in that the two hosts riff with each other conversationally. It’s improvised but they certainly know where they’re taking it.
The problem I see with it (in Radio Lab and church) is that while they may differ on opinions about some things, they fundamentally are both knowledgeable and on the same page about a given topic. This sometimes makes the “conversation” seem scripted which seems to lose its potential for diversity. I especially think it would be too difficult to pull off in a given church family. It’d probably be easier to hear 2 strangers doing this than the pastor and his/her worship leader, for example.
I happen to like the idea of a debate which would force each opposing stance to “get its say”, though I agree it would be uncomfortable for most if they’re being hashed out by respected leaders. Generally I like the concept though because it allows things to be learned, not just taught, at the pulpit. I think too often the teacher/pastor is seen as knowing “too much” and loses credibility because of it.
Regarding the idea of Q&A (and at the risk of being laughed at for my TV watching habits), Desperate Housewives just touched on this subject last week. A subplot in the episode centered around bringing a friend to church. When the friend “shockingly” raised her hand at the end of the sermon, the embarrassed inviter encouraged the invitee to consider a different denomination.
It all worked out in the end but the underlying theme of that plot line was that generally people perceive the church (as defined by Sunday morning) as a “place for answers, not questions.”
Unfortunately, I agree. I’d like to change that perception but I think our current method only perpetuates this belief and seems to turn a more knowledgeable (and therefore jaded) general public off.
One last thought on Q&A. I’ve actually been in settings where hearty Q&A and “dialogue” is welcome……it still is nothing more than listening to the same 2-3 outspoken dweebs trying to “stump the bartender” so they can put the spotlight on them. It’s right up there with the spiritual leaders who spoke lofty prayers to gather attention/affection. No one’s uncomfortable in the room, but everyone stops participating when they’re just trying to get to lunch.
Open Q&A in large groups is rarely healthy or productive.
nate says:
April 18th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
wow….so I basically have no solutions….and need to use extra break tags. Sorry, I know very little html.
jose says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:24 pm
I wasn’t originally thinking of this as a way for the congregation to teach one another, but closer to what Paul describes in 1Corinthians 14:29. More than one prophet (or teacher) working together to edify the body. I was thinking more an alternate presentation of teaching.
jose says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 9:41 pm
Geez Nate, write a novel, why don’t you. ;-)
I’d learn a lot from a debate or letting all sides “have its say.” I don’t think Sunday morning is the place for that. I’m not necessarily looking for diversity then, so I’m okay with a scripted conversation. It works for me on Radio Lab.
By the way, have you picked up that Jad is a hard naturalist while the older gentleman is at the very least open to the supernatural? It’s a little interesting).
RE: pastor as having all the answers
I like a healthy dose humility in my preachers even as they are confident of what they’ve studied and what’s been revealed to them. I like it if a preacher at least acknowledges other valid (or reasonable) understandings of a text. I like it when a preacher proclaims correct doctrine as best he can.
RE: the perception of church as place for answers, but not questions.
I’m not sure what you mean by a more knowledegable public. In any case, I’d like church to be a place for both. We have answers that we can be reasonably confident in. God can handle sincere questions. I don’t know how much of the questions can happen on Sunday morning, but then church is more than Sunday morning.
Thanks for adding your thoughts, Nate. I really appreciate it.
nate says:
April 23rd, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Thanks. By “knowledgeable” I only mean that the general public are less “wowed” by organized religion and purported doctrine. As a society, we are less communal and jaded by institutional thinking.
I agree that churches should be confident in their “answers” and perpetual Q&A leads nowhere. However, the concept of “no questions” (to me) was more about the idea that many churches are done trying to understand how the Bible applies to the community they live in….beyond a “relevant” (oh, how I hate that word!) topical series based on pop culture references.
Don’t worry, I’ve grown sick of the word “missional” too! hehe.
Rob Woods says:
April 24th, 2008 at 7:55 am
I think this would be a great idea assuming the pastor had a strong grasp of the passage he was conversing about. I think it’d be great to have a normal Joe Blow ask heart-felt questions about God and the bible.
IF nothing else, it shows the true heart of normal people and can help bring down the typical pastor arrogant stereotype.
jos' says:
April 24th, 2008 at 8:51 am
yeah, I saw this more as dual teachers, one main teacher and the other asking incisive questions, at least as far as Sunday morning.
nate says:
April 24th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
I agree, Rob. I think it would feel much more genuine for a “Joe Blow” to be asking the questions. I’d still struggle with the balance of being “open” to the person who wants to ask…..and preventing some “Joe” from playing stump the bartender with the Pastor.
This really is a tough one.
-Dave says:
April 25th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Speaking only for myself, I’d feel like it was staged and hokey.
What’s the practical harm of someone playing “stump the pastor?” The alternative I see is making sure only good upstanding people are allowed to ask questions about the finer points of doctrine being preached, and I think that would all but invalidate the benefit of such a style (ie, the ability for people who aren’t as familiar with the passage and doctrine to have their concerns addressed through a substitute) if you can’t really open up the floor.
If someone ventures far off the initial topic through questions about, say, eternal security when the topic of hell is mentioned in the passage… then perhaps it’s not purely fruitless because many other people may be thinking the same way.
To have any real progress in the “discussion,” you’d need people who approach the topic in as different a way and with as backgrounsd as different as you can get. The more similar the people are, the more staged it will feel. Real learning doesn’t take place in a discussion until you find the areas where you diverge, so that you are stretched to either defend or abandon your positions.
jose says:
April 25th, 2008 at 10:40 am
Okay, so the guy on the right, doesn’t like it, and the guys on the left not much more.
I was thinking that I don’t think Fresh Air is hokey or Charlie Rose. The interviewers don’t have a different background. If they do, it doesn’t matter that much. And they’re not trying to ask “gotcha” questions.
But I’ve also seen Hugh Downs (formerly of 20/20) doing “interviews” on infomercials. And that is certainly hokey and staged, i.e. “inauthentic.”
jose says:
April 25th, 2008 at 10:41 am
I’m surprised no one commented on how this is contrary to my penchant for ritual and liturgy on Sunday morning.
nate says:
April 26th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
I’m surprised no one commented on how this is contrary to my penchant for ritual and liturgy on Sunday morning.
…because, in the blogosphere…..we try to pretend you’re cooler than that. =)
BTW, Dave: word. I totally agree. I’m just worried that it’ll be the same 2-3 guy/gals grilling the pastor every time. And if/when they find divergence, will the layperson know when to take the discussion offline? It could get “uncomfortable” for many people quickly, unfortunately.
kenny says:
April 28th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
I do like the idea of Q&A at the end, as I really, really miss trying to stump Dave Pastrell. Seriously, that was an identity: the unanswerable question, the knowing look…
Just kidding, sort of. But, seriouly, I like Q&A as one of the three people who participate in it when its offered.
I think one thing about a Terry Gross or Charlie Rose interview is that you’re actually looking to hear from both people, the interviewer and interviewee. I don’t know if Christian learning would be faciliated well or poorly based on this model. I guess it would be fine if you had two skillful people, but as we all know it’s hard enough to find ONE person you want to listen to in the pulpit. Trying to find two…well, good luck.
Also, I think Joe Blow is a term Barack Obama should really start using to refer to the common, bitter person.