In light of Jim Belcher's response to Doug Pagitt's own proposal for "progressional dialogue," I want to weigh in with what I suggest is my own proposal for a Third Way. I have been in contact with a few persons who wanted to know what I thought about Belcher's response to Pagitt so here goes...
First this: I will critique both Belcher and Pagitt for what they have not said, and I infer from what they have not said to the conclusion that they have not emphasized what I think needs to be emphasized more (and that will be my proposal below).
I think Jim Belcher's proposal is still traditionalist, and all the terms folks find for preaching they don't like - one-way, etc - is critique of bad preaching and not critique of traditional preaching. There is an important place for public declaration; there always has been and there always will be. Jim believes this but the problem with the traditionalist approach is bad preaching, not preaching. Jim and I agree on the importance of preaching and the need to avoid bad preaching (who doesn't?), but his approach remains traditionalist (more later).
But Pagitt's proposal, which has progressive features in it and a hermeneutic that needs more definition, is also still too traditional for it is locked too much into what happens on Sunday. I take his suggestion of community discussion of a text to be a step forward, but his "progressional dialogue" model (as I recall from reading his book and blogging about it when it came out) still appears to me to be too directed at what happens in the "sermon" (call it "progressional dialogue" or something else) in one setting. Yes, he advocates participation of the church in the sermon, but it is still focused on the sermon (as far as I know).
A genuine Third Way will get beyond the Sunday morning
sermon as the primary form of spiritual formation and education in a local
church, and neither Belcher nor Pagitt seem to approach preaching through the lens of a larger formational program with clearly defined outcomes. A genuine Third Way will form a well-rounded and adaptable formation
program that guides all sermons, all teaching, and all activities in the
church. Sermons will be seen as one part of the formational ministry of the church. In other words, Third Way preaching is rooted in the overall outcomes of the church.
If you want to read a book that will rock the pastor's and church's world, but which is very clear and will make all kinds of suggestions, I recommend Maryellen Weimer: Learner-Centered Teaching: Five Key Changes to Practice
. 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.
Within the overall approach to realizing outcomes, which I would say are loving
God, loving others and a life of holiness, sermons play a role and sometimes an
important one. But serious formative changes occur when the individual and
the group participate in, activate, and integrate what is being taught. (By the way, that last sentence requires pages of discussion.) 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.
The biggest issue here is not preaching; the biggest issue is the weight given to preaching in the overall mission of the local church. Emphasizing the weight of preaching is the Third Way.
All of this, of course, within the parameters of the work of
God's Spirit through Word and Eucharist, which means respect for the
Great Tradition of the Church. 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.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
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.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.