Live Blogging at Rob Bell's Preaching Conference 2

I'm intrigued by the idea of making room for discussion and interaction after a sermon. It reminds me of the dynamic one typically sees in the NT as well as the basic format for the Alpha class (lecture, then discussions among smaller groups) with an anticipation towards dialog. I'd like to see more churches work toward recapturing this in actual practice. I think it would help new comers but also shift congregations away from being spectators and more of an interactive community.

RJS-

"but the sermon isn't one of them".

Are you saying not for teaching/preaching at all, or just not in the common format?

"The sermon is a performance - it is not intended to be a two-way communication."

And yet, it was during a sermon that Jesus stood up and yelled, "I am the Living Water! Drink from me!"

Whoa. To have been there.

I think the most powerful sermons have been ones allowing for interaction. Yet some of the most important would have been diluted by two-way communication. Stil . . .

RJS-

"The number of things I hear in a sermon these days that are new is quite small"

So are sermons too oriented towards newer believers, or unbelievers (which can also back to the "why do you go to church" question).

"What is the purpose of a sermon?"

I see the sermon as something to help encourage and help equip.

Rodney-

"We'd rather sit here and listen."

I am not sure that will be the case with younger generations. This brings to mind the article Scot recently linked to regarding recommended changes for universities, namely in the area of interaction with students- because that is what they have become accustomed to in today's network connected world.

"The old-style lecture, with the professor standing at the podium in front of a large group of students, is still a fixture of university life on many campuses. It's a model that is teacher-focused, one-way, one-size-fits-all and the student is isolated in the learning process. Yet the students, who have grown up in an interactive digital world, learn differently. Schooled on Google and Wikipedia, they want to inquire, not rely on the professor for a detailed roadmap. They want an animated conversation, not a lecture."

http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2009/06/igens-google-and-the-future-of.html

Rick,

In my comment #2 I should have phrased the response a bit differently. Why do I go to church? - many reasons, but the sermon isn't one of them for the reasons I gave in #4.

However, the preaching and teaching is often quite good for others and this may be an important part of the reason for many people to go to church.

Still, I would like to see a move away from sermon as performance. I would like to see a move to a more interactive form for most teaching.

Karl,

I think that you are right that a decent chunk is from past sermons, which is why I backtracked a bit in #9. It is also why I don't really fault the sermon itself - or the preacher.

I wonder if the "Sunday sermon" is becoming obsolete? With the emergence of high quality on-line preaching / teaching / theology discourse, of what value is physically proximate information transfer? I carry the world's finest sermons with me in my pocket while I workout at the gym or on my morning walk. Why would I spend my time sitting in an audience every Sunday to hear a comparatively mediocre religious talk? In the last few weeks, I have absorbed well over ten hours of great spiritual monologues and conversations with people like Tozer, Yancey, and Fr. Rohr.

This is an exciting time of transition for the church. Instead of "attending" stage-centric activities, we can use our gathering time to really be present with each other. Pastors can be released to really pastor. Gifted teachers (who may or may not have pastoral gifts) can teach in smaller groups where true interactivity can take place.

We all have something to contribute, together.