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."
Monday, June 29, 2009
How much is really new?
I keep running headlong into the word "new" in the titles, expressed or implied. Usually turns out that anything new and exciting has been in the tradition all along; it's the narrow version of evangelicalism that never had awareness of forms of spiritual expression, theological breadth, and pneumatological (how's that for a good scholastic sounding theological term?) freedom. But I also think Pagitt's book A Christianity Worth Believing goes to another level. His simplistic and historically challenged dichotomy of Greek/Hebrew thinking is appalling. It's hardly a new suggestion, but the brush is so broad as to neatly fit everything he doesn't like about the version of the faith he was first given into the Greek (read: bad guys) category, and therefor detrimental to a version worth believing.
I do resonate with his critique of the extreme emphasis of taking care of all the important stuuf in a momentary encounter, important as that has been to evangelicalism. But it can't be the only thing that matters. Still working through the latter portions of the book, so stay tuned.
I do resonate with his critique of the extreme emphasis of taking care of all the important stuuf in a momentary encounter, important as that has been to evangelicalism. But it can't be the only thing that matters. Still working through the latter portions of the book, so stay tuned.
Thursday, June 25, 2009
A Couple Links
- Scot McKnight had an article in Christianity Today on the 5 streams of the emerging church.
- A recently released book that is an evangelical assessment of the emerging church - seems like essays from several Baptists and some other evangelical scholars like Darrell Bock.
- Dan Kimball commented about that book on his blog today and a little of his involvement with the emerging church movement. he points out that he doesn't really use the term anymore and what he had hoped would be that it would focus on evangelism.
- I've looked though this book and I think it helps express the range of those who have been called emerging. There is some healthy debate within this book. There is a wide range I believe.
Good to Great - Social Sectors
I don't know if anyone has ever read Jim Collins, but this monograph on the social sectors is pretty interesting. In the introduction he states that 30-50% of the questions that come in are from the non-profit sector: churches, schools, NGO's etc.
"A great organization is one that delivers superior performance and makes a distinctive impact over a long period of time. For a business, financial returns are a perfectly legitimate measure of performance. For a social sector organization, however, performance must be assessed relative to mission, not financial returns. In social sectors the critical question is not 'How much money do we make per dollar of invested capital?' but "How effectively do we deliver on our mission and make a distinctive impact, relative to our resources?''
Later he talks about using subjective criteria, not necessarily quantitiative.
Fitch talked about this in his book, the criteria by which we make judgments. I pulled the Bishops report for the Atlantic Conference of the BIC, in it are three graphs: attendance, giving, indebtedness.
For the emerging church what should be the quantitative and subjective criteria that we might measure ourselves in being successful?
"A great organization is one that delivers superior performance and makes a distinctive impact over a long period of time. For a business, financial returns are a perfectly legitimate measure of performance. For a social sector organization, however, performance must be assessed relative to mission, not financial returns. In social sectors the critical question is not 'How much money do we make per dollar of invested capital?' but "How effectively do we deliver on our mission and make a distinctive impact, relative to our resources?''
Later he talks about using subjective criteria, not necessarily quantitiative.
Fitch talked about this in his book, the criteria by which we make judgments. I pulled the Bishops report for the Atlantic Conference of the BIC, in it are three graphs: attendance, giving, indebtedness.
For the emerging church what should be the quantitative and subjective criteria that we might measure ourselves in being successful?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
