Part of Pagitt's problem with preaching (or speaching) is with authority and control. A couple quotes:
"The speaching act allows for the preacher not only to control the content, but also to apply the sermon to people's lives."
"The problem here is not just the delivery system but the assumption that what people need to know exists in the mind and plans of one person who is often little more than an acquaintance for most of the people in the church." pg. 119
Pagitt is not blaming preachers for this really. He says that the problem is that we've been taught that this is what the pastor is supposed to do and we haven't realized that there might be another way.
To those here who pastor/preach - are control and authority things that you think of often? Do you feel that others in our congregations see us as controlling truth? Do others here see their pastor(s) in such a way?
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Friday, July 17, 2009
"Speaching" Preaching Re-Imagined - 2
Instead of evaluating Pagitt's ideas in my posts, I think I'll simply quote him and allow the interaction to take place in the comments. All are welcome to weigh in...
"...nearly every preacher would rightly cringe at the notion that preaching is just giving a speech or a lecture. Yet most preaching is done is such a way that it's hard to understand it as anything other than a speech that happens to have religious content. The 'speacher' stands in front of the 'audience.' The speacher is the only one with the microphone and therefore the only one with the power to speak on the subject at hand. The content of hte speech has been decided on with little, if any, input from those who are hearing the speech, and the conclusions are drawn by the speacher and no one else." Preaching Re-Imagined, pg. 48
Responses?
"...nearly every preacher would rightly cringe at the notion that preaching is just giving a speech or a lecture. Yet most preaching is done is such a way that it's hard to understand it as anything other than a speech that happens to have religious content. The 'speacher' stands in front of the 'audience.' The speacher is the only one with the microphone and therefore the only one with the power to speak on the subject at hand. The content of hte speech has been decided on with little, if any, input from those who are hearing the speech, and the conclusions are drawn by the speacher and no one else." Preaching Re-Imagined, pg. 48
Responses?
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Preaching Re-imagined - 1
I am interested in preaching. I brought up the topic at our last meeting and it seems to be one of some interest. Doug Pagitt's book Preaching Re-Imagined has drawn a lot of attention and strong reactions from many. Let's take a look at it.
Pagitt begins with an assumption that he believes the reader will share - preaching doesn't work - at least not as we've thought of it (pg. 18) This is why preachers read so many preaching books and attend conferences etc. We are hoping to find a 'key' to make preaching work.
Pagitt does, however, believe that preaching is important. The problem, he says, is that we've made preaching into 'speaching' (a term he coins). More on this soon.
He says that we live in a time where the best of 'speaching' is available to us through recordings, mp3, the internet, etc. but it still has not had the desired result.
I'd like your thoughts on the question, is preaching as we know it a broken form of communication? Pagitt's claim is that the problem is not that we're bad at preaching, but that 'speaching' (bascially the sermon as a speach given by one person to a group) is just not effective regardless of how 'good' we are at it.
I have strong feelings about the subject, but I'd like to know yours.
Pagitt begins with an assumption that he believes the reader will share - preaching doesn't work - at least not as we've thought of it (pg. 18) This is why preachers read so many preaching books and attend conferences etc. We are hoping to find a 'key' to make preaching work.
Pagitt does, however, believe that preaching is important. The problem, he says, is that we've made preaching into 'speaching' (a term he coins). More on this soon.
He says that we live in a time where the best of 'speaching' is available to us through recordings, mp3, the internet, etc. but it still has not had the desired result.
I'd like your thoughts on the question, is preaching as we know it a broken form of communication? Pagitt's claim is that the problem is not that we're bad at preaching, but that 'speaching' (bascially the sermon as a speach given by one person to a group) is just not effective regardless of how 'good' we are at it.
I have strong feelings about the subject, but I'd like to know yours.
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
Tony Jones on emerging and emergent
In a recent blog post recap of a speaking event, Tony Jones gives some thought to whether it is useful to differentiate between the terms.
"So, what I'm saying is that maybe, just maybe, the idea of "emerging" does better fit those persons and groups who feel more comfortable with conventional evangelical theologies, and "emergent" is more appropriate for those of us more interested in following the various theological and philosophical rabbit holes that present themselves to us."
"So, what I'm saying is that maybe, just maybe, the idea of "emerging" does better fit those persons and groups who feel more comfortable with conventional evangelical theologies, and "emergent" is more appropriate for those of us more interested in following the various theological and philosophical rabbit holes that present themselves to us."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
