Preaching has lost its sting because of its monologue's nature.If we are to give it its sting back we just have to find a way of making a form of dialogue out of the sermon. We have to bear in mind that what is important is the message communicated not how it is communicated.
According to Albert Einsten, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and again and expecting different results".There is need to unfreeze the audience and get them to creatively and thoughtfully engage not only in the hearing but the formation of the sermon as well. Recently I discovered that the Methodist Church in New Zealand have come up with what they call, "Ten Minutes on Tuesday".The essence of this project is that a group of experts in different fields such as homiletics, theology,art,technology, morality or sociopolitical issues get together and put up a sermon. A person from the Resources Department coordinates these experts. The sermon has a list of possible illustrations, dramas,songs and children's stories. On Tuesday each week and up to three weeks in advance they post the sermon on the website as well as e-mail it to all ministers and lay preachers. The churches and all its congregants can then be free to look at the sermon, make their on comments or additions and modifications or use as it is.
The benefit of it is that the whole church can interact with the preacher from an informed perspective. Every person has an expectation of which illustrations has been used or left out and can follow the progress of the sermon.With modern communication technology these sermons are made available to all.Some congregations that I have visited use these sermons for bible study and others have lively sermon discussions having provided electronic copies and hard copies to all their members before the service.
May be this is one way of unfreezing the listeners in church.We have to be experiential in the way we communicate the gospel because times have changed. People need to be involved or they get bored and go some where else.
Amos, I thought it was death that had lost its sting, not preaching. And, as far as monologues on death go, do you think Hamlet's soliloquy would have worked better as a discussion with the audience?
ReplyDeleteThe nature of a monologue is simply that it's given by one person alone - and I think that's the nature of preaching as well. Monologues, like preaching, can be boring but are not necessarily so. It all depends on the speaker and I believe (really) that if a preacher has something to say and really wants to say it, the message will get through. No matter what.
I think you hit the nail on the head in your third sentence, "what is important is the message communicated not how it is communicated."
And don't take too much notice of Einstein. Only a physicist (or a mathematician, or maybe an engineer) could come up with a line like that. You know as well as I do that if you do the same thing with different people - or even the same people at a different time - the results might well be completely different. And the more times you do the same thing the better you'll get at doing it. Whatever happened to try, try, try again?
Amos, you point us to a fascinating example. It brings together a number of strands in this course. First, the place and potential of the web in creating, and resourcing, conversation.
ReplyDeleteSecond, giving space to a variety of voices, "different fields such as homiletics, theology,art,technology, morality or sociopolitical issues get together and put up a sermon"
Third, seeing preaching as a conversation. (I want to say that even a monologue can be a conversation, as it listens well and engages with a range of conversational partners around the table,
Steve Taylor