Scot, I couldn’t agree more. The USAmerican evangelical propensity to put most of the Christian Formation on the sermon has placed pastor-teachers in a dangerous place. Pastors are bailing out of churches faster than we can count. Why? People expect the sermon to be the magic bullet for personal and family transformation. I appreciate your gentle critique of Pagitt because simply making “the sermon” dialogical rather than a monologue is not going to foster more Christian Formation. It’s slick and innovative, but still expected to deliver what it can’t.
I’m all for innovations, but nothing new is going to be “the secret” of communal Christian formation. Hard pastoral work by many along side the pastor(s) will lead toward the shaping of Jesus Creed communities. An idea I heard and wonder how to implement is for pastors to ask more questions in the sermon than they give “principles,” “bullet points,” and “applications.” Stir the pot and let the community hash out the answers in whatever settings they have to “provoke one another to love and good works.”

Scot,
This is interesting – but I would like a more concrete indication as to how it will actually lead to growth – spiritual growth.
College teaching methods tend to be directed to homogeneous units with well defined goals – a church is very different, more like a K-grad school and beyond curriculum than a college classroom. How do these ideas apply in a church setting?
Most importantly, how can this approach lead to a system that allows (and even expects) parishioners to grow into peers? How does it avoid setting a ceiling?
And Jim – if you read this, it is an even bigger problem in your setting as a PCA structure inherently legislates that 50% of the people cannot actually grow past an artificial ceiling.

What I hear you saying is that (1) churches need to see themselves as holistic makers of disciples; (2) discipleship has to include a serious commitment to discipleship of the mind; and (3) discipleship entails the engagement of the whole community, not only or even primarily the preacher.
Yes!

RJS, thanks.
Well, Outcome based education works if the teacher and “the system” support it. Alverno College proves it.
The issue here is that churches need to “aim” at something with everything they do — and not just a missional statement, which gets the big image on the table, but with concrete, assessment-able outcomes and objectives and goals. So, we need to have churches working hard at what they think a mature Christian looks like — and then to begin shaping everything, including sermons, at those outcomes.
This will (1) require mentoring and (2) imply genuine fellowship where distinctions of lay and clergy are more broken down as each does her or his part to help in the formation of folks in the church.

dopderbeck, good one. Yes, I think we agree.

Scot,
I’ve been reading Jim’s book since last evening. There is much in it that I like a lot. Jim writes with a winsome, irenic style – which is why I was puzzled with my discomfort with his Chapter 8 on preaching. You’ve unpacked it for me, for which I give you thanks. The sermon can never and will never be the primary way we see the church spiritually formed and grown in understanding, wisdom & knowledge. No matter how gifted the preacher and how good his or her material.
John, your “People expect the sermon to be the magic bullet for personal and family transformation” is bang on – if you’ll forgive the pun.
I find myself talking about producing catechism resources these days – something I would have laughed about ten years ago. But that desire is in response to a church culture that seems to know little of the great narratives of our faith – and one that places next to no emphasis on spiritual formation.

If a church sets up a three-fold goal (as you suggested) of Love God, Love Your Neighbor, Be Holy; and then considered how every church activity (including the sermon) helps make that goal of a reality, this would help put the sermon in it’s place as A tool, not the MAIN tool for reaching the goal.
I’m very intrigued by the idea of learning based teaching within the church for spiritual formation. I find that a lot of my pastoral counseling is a form of spiritual formation which shapes my sermon – keeping what I preach rooted in reality. I try to make most every conversation I have as a pastor somehow be a source for further spiritual formation in that persons’ life, as well as fuel for context for my sermon. It’s an attempt towards the third way, but not sufficiently thought/acted out yet.

Thanks for fleshing these thoughts out, Dr. McKnight. I’ll fully own my hypocrisy when I say that I sometimes get tired of the progressional nature of blog comments, when what I’d really like is to hear what you think! (Not that I always agree, of course) So thanks for doing so here.

Scot,
Some terrific points here.
Just put into my amazon cart the book you recommend in your post:” Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice.” Look forward to reading it.
Is this approach similar to the 4mat approach that my friends at CRM have taught me? http://tinyurl.com/yehvlcg
At Redeemer, our goal is for spiritual formation to take place in many places and formats–the sermon, The Lord’s Supper, the entire worship service which is participation in the drama of salvation, adult ed classes, community groups which discuss the sermon and learn to love one another, mission trips, retreats, special 4MAT (left brain/right brain) learning experiences, book discussion groups, formal and informal discipline and one-on-mentoring.
I totally agree that the sermon cannot be the only place that spiritual formation takes place! Forgive me if I gave that impression. My chapter on preaching was in response to the protest on traditional preaching from the emerging side. But in hindsight, the book could have used a whole chapter on making disciples!
thanks!
Jim

I think the way Belcher closes this chapter illustrates that while the main focus of his writing in this chapter has been on preaching he does not view preaching as an island unto itself but rather as part of a larger ministerial integration of week-long in community living.
Here’s how he wraps it up;
“Our goal is neither disseminating information nor achieving a certain spiritual experience, but transformation. This happens in center-set preaching, in community groups and in individual lives as we live out the gospel with boldness, conviction and humility.” (pg. 159)
His description as it stands doesn’t seem to cut against what your suggesting Scot as far as I can tell.

Mike (#8),
The progressional nature of blog comments is an important part of learning – but only if people who know something actually enter the conversation.
Otherwise it resembles most adult SS classes and small groups of my experience. A bunch of people express opinions or impressions, all considered of equal value and many of which are either silly or junk. (After all what counts is “what the Bible means to me.”) No one provides a filter and no one actually directs conversation in a profitable direction.
An “ask the expert” (or class or sermon) is only slightly better.
And, I admit, I am a bit jaded about these kinds of church experiences – something I, no doubt, need to work on.

Scot – I fully agree that the church should be all about holistic spiritual formation. I was a tad curious why you separated out a 3-fold goal of love God, love others, and be holy – could not the argument be made that “be holy” is simply part of what it means to love God and others?
But my main question is is how does making the focus bigger really provide a third way between these two styles of preaching? I think many proponents of both traditional preaching and dialogue styles would heartily agree that the sermon should not be the main focus of church or the main path of spiritual formation. All good, so then what? Are you suggesting that the sermon be done away with altogether in favor of other more holistic forms of learning? Or are you just suggesting that less emphasis be placed on the sermon? If it is just less emphasis, we are still left with the same debate on what form the sermon itself should take.

Scot,
You’ve got my attention with this post! This is very, very good. It addresses an unease that I have had toward preaching for quite awhile. While I think proclamation is very important and necessary, I have sensed that something is missing. I like the way you are coming at this in terms of the overall spiritual formation of the church.
I ordered the book and look forward to thinking this through. Now that I’ve read the post, I need to think about the implications, etc.
I hope you will say more about this, Scot, in future posts.

What if we stopped seeing the sermon as “teaching” at all? The book you suggest is interesting and good, but why cast the sermon as a form of pedagogy?
If the sermon is understood as part of the overall function of worship – praise of God – then the proclamation is not about training up Christians. That is why we have other formational experiences and settings.
Maybe I’m crazy. Teaching and preaching are different things – or could be.

For the better part of two decades preaching has been a critical aspect of my life, so it should not surprise that this conversation has piqued my interest. Even so, I feel as though I have stumbled into the middle of a conversation that has been going for some time, so forgive me if my question/comment is completely off-point.
Observations: Scot’s comments regarding “Third Way” preaching does not seem to offer any concrete proposals regarding the act/ministry of preaching itself. While it may be necessary to reassess the relative weight that is ascribed to preaching within the formative mission of the Church, I’m not certain what value such a reassessment will have for the Church if it is not accompanied by concrete proposals for preaching itself.
Question: Does the conversation concerning “Third Way” preaching intend to offer or elicit any such concrete proposals for the act/ministry of preaching?

I’m from New England, but I listen to a podcast from a church in the Toronto area called “The Meeting House”. Their whole approach is based on a model of Sunday is a day of teaching and priming for continued study @ Home Church during the week. The sermon is intentionally designed to leave room for dialog and discussion at Home Church, which they believe is the most important part of Church, not the Sunday morning time. I can’t speak to the level or % of folks who are involved @ the Home Church side, but their holistic approach to teaching and integration to a local smaller community is interesting. This is a 3rd way church that is doing some really interesting things in Canada.

Awesome. This is right on. Preaching by itself…or even Sunday by itself without the context of a vision and a direction for an entire community for their entire lives (not just how they spend a few hours on Sunday morning is how it needs to be accomplished. We have somehow created this preaching thing, and cognitive understanding as the central role in forming Christians. Thanks Scott, seriously awesome post.

I didn’t read all of the comments so forgive me if I’m reinventing the wheel. If I remember correctly, Doug’s push towards progressional dialogue had to do as much with the amount of resources we are using. The foundation of his claim was that we spend too much time and energy on something that should not be the foundation of the life of the church: the sermon. Progressional dialog was then a way to honor the position of the sermon without assuming that it is THE primary way that people are spiritually formed.
Scot, isn’t that consistent with your point? Doug proposes progressional dialogue because it is a better use of our resources. I think he then kind of blurs things and starts claiming that it is better for our formation but I think his premise is that the sermon shouldn’t be our primary mode of formation.

“I have been suggesting for some time that the biggest shift will come in churches when they take education (especially for adults) seriously. We can tweak sermons and Sunday services all we want, but the only real substantive shift will occur when a larger vision for formation and education are shaped by outcomes.
What is most needed is a complete spiritual formation approach to the entire church and for each person; outcomes need to be formulated by the leaders and the church so that the whole approach is embraced.”
AMEN and AMEN!

.
Thanks Jim #9 and Julie #12 for your helpful comments.
I agree that preaching is just one of many ways spiritual formation can take place in the local body. The pastor is not solely responsible for discipling/teaching everyone through Sunday morning sermons. I get that.
But the subject of HOW we should preach (what form it should take: traditional, emerging, third way etc) is still an important question because everything done in a worship gathering communicates SOMETHING about the values and character of a local body.
An old school, expository verse by verse sermon communicates something different than an interactive dialogue with participatory discussion and rabbit trails. A 55-minute sermon communicates something different than a 22-minute sermon, or no sermon at all. The question is, what is the best way to deliver the message we are striving to communicate? How can we narrow the disconnect between what we should be communicating vs. the message actually coming across?
I’d be interested to hear more from Scot about some examples of concrete, measurable outcomes churches could aim for and how these relate to the various preaching forms.

great post.
I’m understanding from Scot – and others – that though the sermon is still important (in line with the tradition of the church) it can’t stand alone. It can’t be a beginning or end, but must be part of something bigger. This keeps the beauty of what the sermon is meant to be AND takes the pressure of what we make it out to be.
Thanks for the post and comments.

I’m gonna just add a big “Amen” to the post and this: no one would do preaching the way we generally do it if we adopted the larger, formational goals Scot has proposed, or any that resembled mature Christ-likeness. It’s within these larger goals that some of the suggestions for dialog and other changes start to make sense.

I just got back to my room at Trinity Western; it’s late for my body clock so I’ll get to this tomorrow.
Great questions… this post needs to be extended because there’s so much at stake.

Yes, yes, yes. Thank you, Scot!
I’d “merely” add that the preacher must be in on the transformational process, in the real sense of leading them as a shepherd in conformation to Christ, or the “program” will lack the life of the Holy Spirit empowering and inspiring all the members of the Body.

Scot,
Alverno College looks interesting. But I still think that a church is fundamentally different from a college – transformation is different from learning a body of knowledge. The outcome approach needs to be adapted – not adopted.
I enjoy a good sermon, even an adequate sermon (I have not heard very many “bad” ones actually) – and I’ve learned a great deal from many of them over the years. Lectures of many sorts provide an important tool. This can be an integrated piece of a “whole body” worship experience – heart, soul, mind, strength.
Certainly the sermon needs to be part of a larger, intelligently designed whole with a desired outcome expected and facilitated.
Part of an outcome based approach requires though, requires that the leaders actually expect people to listen, apply, learn, and grow. Far too often the pastor – (with a realism born of experience no doubt) doesn’t really expect people to listen and learn. Transformation is preached but not expected.
I’ll be interested to see where this goes…

Let me add another short comment – I find much of this discussion frustrating for a variety of reasons. Most people who comment on this discussion here are preachers or teachers – people with leadership positions in one form or another in the church, people who are looking to learn better ways to work with a congregation. The goal is to lead.
My perspective is different – I do not have and have never had a leadership position, even a lay-leader position in any church. I am a University professor, a scholar, and a scientist – I think, analyze, write, teach, study (among other things). It is not that I would not be willing to be involved in a church in a lay position – but I have never been given the opportunity.
So – I am looking at this from the point of view of a person within the congregation, a person who listens, learns, and is intent on transformation. The leadership at our church is moving in the direction you propose. It is working – and many more people are becoming deeply engaged. Great things are happening. Many students and young professionals in particular are actively growing.
For me personally … there is less for me in the church at this time than there has been anytime in the 17 years I’ve attended. Here is where you really see my frustration come out – how do we build an outcome based approach where the outcome is to make peers out of people – and not just people who fit in a predetermined mold?

And a little more – in outcome based education students graduate and go elsewhere – to learn more or to apply the knowledge. A few come back and teach and lead.
What does this mean for the church? Does it lead to an ecclesiology where we should expect to reach a point in life where the church is no longer relevant? (Except, of course for worship and sacrament.)

RJS,
The secret to outcome based education is transferring the power from the teacher’s performance to the student’s learning. This can be subtle (tweaking how we say things) to radical (a power-shaped pastor who needs to surrender the power to God at work in God’s people and to God’s people taking the responsibility to act and live in Christian ways).
But the “peer” issue is critical in the power issue. The point is not to conform to the pastor’s ideas but to be conformed to Christ — together.
I think I will do a series on this book for churches.

As a pastor, I completely agree with the holistic approach to spiritual formation proposed here by Scot and others. It is a goal toward which churches should focus their efforts. The sermon should not be the primary focus of spiritual formation.
However, I am still concerned about what I think Paggitt was creatively addressing in his book–those in the congregation who for various reasons, legitimate or not, only take part in the church community on Sunday morning. Having read his book over a year ago, I do not remember all the details of it, but it seemed like the practice of progressional dialogue involved more than just the Sunday sermon. He would meet with people during the week before the sermon who had read the text and he would discuss with them how it connected with their lives. On Sunday morning, people who have digested the text and lived it for a week would help give more perspective as to how that particular text might be applied in a variety of circumstances, not just that of the preacher. (This is something I’ve always struggled to communicate–helping people apply the text in their own circumstances as varied as a school teacher, mechanic, CEO, etc. I haven’t experienced all those and many other occupations and circumstances so it is difficult to communicate the text to everyone at once.) This practice can certainly help those once-a-week attenders to perhaps get more out the sermon because they can connect with someone who shares their life experiences who has contributed to the progressional dialogue. There is a certain value to preaching in this way that goes beyond Sunday morning especially for those involved in the preaching.
My question that I hope will receive some discussion and comment is, “How can we help the spiritual formation of those who will only be part of the community on Sunday mornings?”

RJS,
I don’t think this would lead to church being irrelevant. Quite the contrary, I think it would lead to more in house laying on hands and sending out for mission, and more of a missionary identity for pastors. Gordon Cosby (Church of the Savior, DC) said years ago that “we’re geared for infancy.” Making these shifts would also lead to more sharing of the work, including teaching, as we actually make it our goal to pass these truths on to faithful people who are able to pass them on to others.

“There is no Third Way preaching until we get beyond the Sunday morning service as the primary form of education and formation in the church.”
However, as Duane mentions, Sunday is all most have.
Unless people can participate and learn within their existing schedules, the impact will be limited.
Likwise, and related to the church relevance question, the goal needs to regularly equip to go out, and not be inward focused so that people simply feed the machine.

Duane (#29) and Rick (#31),
It is a very sad commentary that “Sunday is all most have.” I do not think in any valid way you can claim those folks who only have Sunday are participating in what the New Testament describes as “church.” So many dynamics are at play in this conversation and I am glad Scot affirms that “so much is at stake here” and contemplates a series on the topic. I know pastors who brag about “the crowd” that shows up on Sundays. “Crowd”? “We had a good crowd on Sunday,” they say. What is the purpose of a sermon for a crowd? Is a crowd a collection of isolated individuals who will give an offering after they are either scolded and feel better for the verbal whipping or who are therapeutically coddled and boosted in their self-esteem?
I am coming to believe that no one template of preaching is valid for all congregations. Churches are severely local, and to try Pastor So-and-so’s method may be dangerous to the church’s health. We have this bent toward trying new stuff without ever living with, leisurely listening to and shaping God’s Word for a specific local context. I think Jesus and the Apostle John would have cringed at even thinking of addressing the seven churches of Asia Minor in the same way. What works for Doug Pagitt and Solomon’s Porch may be precisely what that community needs, but top presume that is a method for San Diego or Kiev or Nagoya is nuts.

John,
Duane’s question is a good one – “How can we help the spiritual formation of those who will only be part of the community on Sunday mornings?”
How many people are actually involved in an intentional education experience through the flotsam and jetsam of the rest of the week? Now many may have personal devotion, study, discipline; and many may be trying to live out the gospel. But, these days, how many will show up for programs outside of Sunday morning? The answer isn’t more programs – presumably most here agree.

RJS and Duane,
Question:
“How can we help the spiritual formation of those who will only be part of the community on Sunday mornings?”
Answer:
Zero, zip, nada.

RJS and Duane,
It’s like asking, “How can we contribute to the physical well-being and nourishment of those who only take one vitamin pill on Sunday morning?” That’s it. That’s their diet.

John,
Maybe we are not talking about the same thing. What do you mean by “only be part of the community on Sunday mornings?”

Ok – you posted the second while I was writing. But I don’t mean people who are “Sunday only Christians.” I mean people who do not have the time or opportunity to interact with a formal community most of the rest of the week. So they are seven day a week Christians – but only have the luxury of community once a week.

John(#32),
I agree with your sentiments on the “crowd” that people can brag about and the need for adapting preaching to local situations. Having said that, I think one can learn from Paggitt’s model something important about including more voices in the sermon to make better applications.
John(#34 and #35), I think there must be something we can do in the way of spiritual formation for those who cannot make it more than Sunday morning who are also, like RJS (#37) says are 7-day-a-week Christians.
What could/would their community look like? Is an online community similar to the Jesus Creed Community a helpful one for spiritual formation? It is for me, even when I do not comment.
I’m also not willing completely to write off our 1-day-a-week Christians, but think part of our goal of spiritual formation should include ways of using Sunday morning as a place that would help move them into becoming 7-day-a-week Christians and into being part of practices, groups, communities, activities that are spiritually forming.

Duane #38-
“I think there must be something we can do in the way of spiritual formation for those who cannot make it more than Sunday morning who are also, like RJS (#37) says are 7-day-a-week Christians.”
Exactly. The need to use Sunday mornings as an opportunity (perhaps the only opportunity) to equip and encourage is a reality and a must.
And, as RJS mentioned, developing more programs is not practical for a large part of that group, but takes away opportunities for them to be missional agents in their normal routines.
Some churches, such as Northpoint, see Sunday mornings as a stepping stone to encourage people to go deeper. They set it up in a home format with each step moving towards tighter community and relationships. Sundays are more of the “foyer”, then they encouarge people to go to the “living room”, then the “kitchen” (ex. small groups). They openly state that they would rather see people in small groups, or close community/relationships, than at the Sunday morning services.
This then goes back to Scot’s Third Way of the need for proper spiritual development-
“And these formative changes take place within a set of outcomes. And, perhaps most importantly, they take place with spiritual directors, pastors, teachers and friends who come alongside to help a person.”

Forgive me for injecting what may be my own problem with “outcomes based education” in a church context (we in higher education constantly hear about “quantifiable data for outcomes.”) Even though no one has mentioned this (perhaps that should tell me something–this may not be an issue), I’m wondering if it would naturally lead to legalism: this is what a Christian should do for spiritual development. The benchmark is established; now all must comply. Then, comes all the judgments about who doesn’t measure up, e.g., Sunday only Christians.
As I read the comments, is that what lies beneath some of the concerns, e.g., #31 – 38?

Rodney,
I think you bring up a valid point that it could lead to judgmentalism if one pushes a benchmark approach. That’s not what I hear Scot saying, rather the outcome would be living the Jesus Creed + holiness. On the other hand, I would think of outcomes in the terms of practical theology. By this I mean that one should look at the type of character is formed by a certain type of theology and how it is taught and preached. I’m thinking in terms of the book unChristian by Kinnaman and Lyons. Sorry for oversimplifying, but the basic message I got out of their research is that people who are on the outside, not Christians, have a basic perception of Christians that they are unloving and hypocritical, in one sense living out the opposite of the Jesus Creed. When the research shows this to be the outcome, one needs to ask the question as to what theology are we preaching/teaching that leads someone to live in a way that is directly opposed to the way of Jesus. I don’t think we can ignore this, but I don’t see it as something where we look at individuals who come once a week and judge them based on that. That is certainly not my concern. My concern is with how we can use the one opportunity a week we have to perhaps make a small step on the road to spiritual formation in the way of the Jesus Creed for those who only come that one time a week.
I really appreciate the insights of Rick(#39) on this–moving people from “foyer” to “living room” to “kitchen.” What a great analogy.

On the Sunday-only question: In the inner-city community surrounding our church, we have lots of single moms for whom this is an issue. It’s one of the reasons that we strongly encourage everyone to find one or two partners who can pursue discipleship to Christ together, using a mutually agreed plan of discipline or set of materials and meeting time and venue (we call them workout groups). One of the thoughts is that it’s easier for two or three to find time for each other than 10 or 12 as in a typical small group. In fact, in line with this post, we frequently communicate the insufficiency of Sunday worship toward the result of functioning christ-likeness. For that, we need to work this stuff out in relationship, which doesn’t happen in the Sunday meeting.

RJS (##26 and 27)
I appreciate your comments and those of others. I share similar sentiments. With my education level and experience, I see my spiritual formation to depend to a large extent on self-education through books and the spiritual disciplines.
I am curious. What kinds of gatherings or educational vehicles do you have in mind?

Scot (#28),
Great comment – I will look forward to a series on this book, with adaptation for churches.
pds,
I think that it will be interesting to see what Scot has in mind – and to interact with the ideas. One of the reasons I interact here and write … is because it is a powerful way for me to think through ideas.

Ditto on RJS’s last comment (#44). The caliber of discussion here is mind blowing! The questions everyone is asking are poignant. If only someone could tabulate them and we could work together more systematically to answer them! Scot, you’re right that this conversation is loaded with potential.
After reading (thoughtfully!) through all these comments, may I weigh in all at once without seeming rude? Here are a few thoughts and questions I have:
1. How do we accomplish what you, Scot, are suggesting (i.e., demanding that people be more active in growing their minds as a church), amidst the insane busyness of most people?s lives in metro America? It sounds like you?re advocating more programs, albeit educational ones? or one large, complex program (however you want to parse the verbiage). Rick?s comments (#39) about educational programs supplanting missional relationships are spot on. I?m desperately wondering how to do both.
Perhaps the elephant in the room is that robust Christianity is not necessarily compatible with all vocational and lifestyle choices. As human beings we all have a finite amount of time, so something has to give. If we work 60-70 hours a week and spend 10-20 hours a week commuting, how much time, after our other responsibilities (family, errands, exercise, etc.) have been met, could we devote to church-based education (or anything else church-based for that matter)? I suspect that the scenario I?m describing here is typical of American (sub)urbanites, especially parents w/ children (add extracurricular youth activities into the mix).
2. It?s interesting that you posted this the same day that Dave Fitch posted about pastors being bivocational. Do you think it?s possible to accomplish the kind of educational vision you have with the type of pastoral model Dave is suggesting?
3. Does anyone have any recommendations for quality ?curricula? in a smaller group setting? I empathize strongly with RJS? (and others?) concerns about the pooling of ignorance that goes on in the typical Sunday school class or small group (speaking only from experience, of course). I?d be much more optimistic about learning in smaller group settings if I knew of resources (esp. curricula, sm. grp. leader training modules) that would help facilitate a truly engaging and formative experience. Oh, and data (even anecdotal, coming from the right person/s) to back up the resources? claims to effectiveness would be a plus as well.
Thanks, Scot, for this provocative post and for the book recommendation (which I will be purchasing)!
Kudos to all,
Matt

Matt Stephens,
I think you’re right. The big question is whether we’ll be willing to accept a lower standard of living in order to live faithfully.
This should not be read as an indictment on those who are barely hanging in there (single mothers in particular) but those whose true god is obvious by what we give our time to.

Matt Stephens (#45),
Bingo! “Perhaps the elephant in the room is that robust Christianity is not necessarily compatible with all vocational and lifestyle choices.”

Travis #46 and John #47-
Then we need to write off the majority of people who attend on Sundays, and only focus on those who want to adjust their schedule as to attend more church driven activities. Even those who say they are trying to live missionally during the week and are trying to find methods of spiritual encouragement during the week need to just “get a grip”. They are out of luck too.
On the other hand, maybe we can find ways to be more efficient so as to encourage and equip people in the amount of time available.

Rick,
I am certainly not advocating more programs. We do need room to live missionally throughout the week, so 3 nights a week at a building is not going to work for most people.
But seriously, do you really think one hour a week is enough to be the church?
I’d rather we find ways to enable people to have more time available. For those with children, perhaps that means babysitting by single people. Maybe group living to share resources. There are endless possibilities. We shouldn’t be bound to a pragmatism that says “Well, this is what people have to give.”

Rick,
Not everything, not even most things, that need to be done towards transformation can or even should be done at a church building. In fact, Scot’s initial point–that we need to put more hope in activities outside of the sermon–plays perfectly into a plan in which our whole lives become grounds for training and mission, even if being a disciple does require that we modify some or several activities within our normal american work/play schedule. The point of the post is that in order to accomplish God’s goals of functioning Christ-likeness writ-large, we can’t keep thinking that attending a typical Sunday morning singing and sermon session is going to do it (no matter how we change it). Church leadership needs to adopt more robust formational goals, and then change not only our teaching in light of those goals but all of how we lead and resource people’s efforts in pursuit of them.

Travis and T-
#50, “Not everything, not even most things, that need to be done towards transformation can or even should be done at a church building.”
Exactly- I totally agree. That is why I mentioned the emphasis on small groups/community/relationships at Northpoint. That setting takes priority over Sunday mornings. If people have limited time, Northpoint would rather them be in small community settings since that is the productive way towards spiritual maturity/transformation.
Unfortunately, not everyone can do that, so Sunday may be the only option…..
However, at many (most?) churches, people are not even being told about these transformation goals and methods, but are being told to invest more and more time (that they don’t have) at the church. That approach is just spinning wheels.
I don’t think “the elephant in the room is that robust Christianity is not necessarily compatible with all vocational and lifestyle choices”; I think the elephant in the room is that churches just want you back in the building for scheduled programs and gatherings.
This is why Scot’s proposal on a Third Way is so important. It can help communicate those spiritual transformation priorities and goals, so that we are no longer stuck with the “typical Sunday morning singing and sermon session”. That way we can encourage and equip people (including the Sunday only, small group only, or multi time people) to evaluate for themselves how to strive for those goals in their current, given situations.

Matt,
Greg Ogden’s book Transforming Discipleship, may give you some interesting and surprising points and data concerning small group structures and formats. Even though it is fairly content-neutral, it’s worth a read.
You might also want to read the book Scot proposes in the post. One of the author’s 5 recommendations is how to view content differently. The task of making disciples (learners, apprentices) is larger and more important than the task of teaching. We need to shape all our efforts, including small groups, more around making learners. I don’t know how much content is structured to do that well, or incorporate any other of the books recommendations, because it’s still too new for me.
There is lots of good content, though, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. Renovare has great stuff. Scot’s Jesus Creed (or 40 days with . . .) is great. I could go on and on.

Rick (#51),
Perhaps we are understanding the thrust of Scot’s proposal very differently. What I am understanding is that the Sunday morning (or Saturday or Sunday night, if that’s what is done) corporate worship gathering, no matter what form it takes or how good the content, is insufficient to form the “love of God of the mind” in believers. That is point #1. The implication is that more needs to be done. By whom, for whom, how, etc. are the questions we’re wrestling with here. I am also understanding that Scot is strongly suggesting that the leaders of the church have a responsibility for the intellectual formation of their congregation members that extends beyond what can be “delivered” during the congregation’s main “worship gathering.” Where this takes place, what form it takes, and how much time it requires are obviously secondary. But we need to be clear on what we’re “debating” here (if we are debating). What I hear you reacting against is the former proposal (the general pastoral responsibility just described), but most of us here accept this proposal and are discussing the “whos and hows” concerning its praxis.
Something I find interesting is how moot this conversation would seem to Willow Creek in light of their “epiphany” that spiritual formation is not the responsibility (or a very minimal responsibility) of “the church” (i.e., the leaders). That was their big “aha,” which only served to justify their lack of attention to developing, supporting, and encouraging the kinds of corporate activity that facilitate Christian formation corporately (along all stages of the Christian journey and not just the beginning). I’m finding that there appears to be an implicit acceptance, among some of the comments here, of Willow’s premise that Christians (past the “baby” stage) should become “self-feeders.” Again, I am understanding Scot’s proposal in this post to be at odds with this view. Am I understanding you/him right?

Matt #53:
I am agreeing with,
“Scot is strongly suggesting that the leaders of the church have a responsibility for the intellectual formation of their congregation members…”
I am concerned about,
“that extends beyond what can be “delivered” during the congregation’s main “worship gathering.”
In many cases you cannot have both 9that is just the reality), so the worship gathering needs to be adjusted from the “typical Sunday morning singing and sermon session”.
If spiritual formation is a priority, and we all seem to agree that it is, and you have limited time, then we need to find ways to best utilize that time. Some college ministries are good at this.
And yes, that does mean some self-feeding, but not in unattached individualism that can lead to unhealthy, personalized spiritual practices. Rather, that which takes place in small groups (even in place of Sunday if necessary), or at least with the tools and resources for healthy growth.
Sometimes the church seems to want to fit a square peg in a round hole, rather than prioritizing and adjusting to the given circumstances. So if this a priority, then it needs to be “in place of”, not just “in addition to”.

Rick,
Don’t you think that we have a more severe problem when all people can find time for is the “Sunday morning singing and sermon session”?
Now I agree with your evaluation of time constraints – but it ought to be possible to structure a Sunday based “program” that provides more than singing and sermon without eliminating singing and sermon. Many do include adult education and fellowship — but still contained in a once a week commitment.

RJS-
I agree, and was trying to emphasize more the “typical” in quoting the “typical Sunday morning…” The sermon and singing (and sacraments) are valuable parts of the service.
However, cannot sermon, singing, sacraments be adjusted to more of a “third way”? Cannot we stop having the sermon be simply a lecture to the lowest common denominator, and simply about having a good marriage, or parenting, or finances, etc… I know Scot is advocating that much of this needs to be done apart from the sermon/service, but, depending on the form, that may not be practical for many.
Let’s raise the existing bar, by adjusting that limited time so that we are:
Constantly incorporating and centering topics in deeper and
more powerful overall themes (gospel, kingdom, missional, discipleship, great tradition, etc…);
Including ways to make the sermon more efficient preaching and participating;
And always, always encouraging and equipping people to go deeper after the service (as you mentioned) or during the week (either alone or as part of a smaller community).
Same with music. Let’s make it in which people can (will) participate. At Vintage Faith (Dan Kimball), the worship “team” will sometimes play in the back, behind the congregation, thus encouraging more proper focus and participation. And, as you have mentioned, let’s not limit the music to 1 type and tone.
Let’s not even get on the topic of the sacraments since many churches don’t even partake in those on a regular basis (what a loss).
Sermon, singing, sacraments- they should be seen as encouraging and equipping starting points, not ends unto themselves. We wonder why many are 1 day a week Christians- because that is all they are given and told to expect. Christ and His work are certainly sufficient, yet our growth is expected. We can take what time we have and adjust it to reach those higher goals.
I know Scot is advocating that much of this is done part from Sunday morning, and I am not against that. However, we just need to begin by at least helping those who are eager, yet only have that Sunday morning or limited time during the week.