I just looked up an interview that I felt was interesting on the preaching subject we've been discussing. It is on the 9Marks blog. A pastor/church planter named Mike McKinley is asking Steve Timmis, one of the authors of the book Total Church, about his claim that preaching need not always be 'monologue.'
I think it will be worth your time to read it.
Check it out HERE.
Here is one quote from the interview:
"What we are doing is challenging the privileged status of the extended monologue. At one level, it's a pragmatic argument: different contexts call for different approaches. But it's a principled pragmatism. The principle is the centrality of God's Word in the corporate life of God's people. How that is secured and sustained depends on the context. If you're in someone's front room, then you have opportunity to invite questions, respond to comments and explore issues 'on the hoof'. But all the time, the Bible is your reference point. You're bringing people under the gospel and showing them Christ. Here's the thing Mike: being Word-centred is not the same as being preaching-centered, and I want our churches to be the former. Now that will always involve formal teaching, and by someone gifted as a teacher, and it may involve preaching as extended monologue, but not necessarily. It might be worth your readers knowing that even if someone is teaching dialogically in a household context, the preparation required is equal to, and probably greater than that for a 30-40 minute monologue. Why? Because you have absolutely no idea what questions you're going to be asked as you are teaching! Someone can ask a doozy of a left-field question and you've got to make sure that your answer takes them right back into the passage your teaching. Dialogical teaching is not the same as a 'pooling of ignorance' where everyone has an equal say. Sometimes, you just have to tell people they are wrong, plain wrong."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Is anyone really arguing against the dialogical aspect of teaching? But that's not the same thing as preaching, which is proclamation. It's not an either/or decision here. Jesus did both. Often, the proclamation led to the dialog. But he didn't stop doing one in order to do the other, and I think it would be a serious error for us to do so today.
ReplyDeleteWe live in a context that holds different assumptions from those in the Bible. Those differences need desperately to be announced; then let the conversation flow, with seeker, skeptic, friend, or foe alike. But don't stop announcing.
I think part of his point is that there can be dialogue within or in the midst of the proclaimation. I think it's evident here that Timmis is not soft on doctrine, the Bible, etc. in an emerging way. What he's claiming is that preaching does not HAVE to be only speaker and listener, although it well can be.
ReplyDeleteSo what say you group? Can there be some type of degree of 'dialogue' in the midst of true biblical proclaimation?