One of the reasons that I feel Jim Belcher’s Deep Church: A Third Way Beyond Emerging and Traditional is an important book is because it gives a voice to many guys, like myself who feel caught in the middle. I am not “traditional” (as Belcher identifies it), though I share many of their theological concerns. Nor am I “emergenting,” though I share some of their concerns.

One of the areas I feel the pinch of being caught “in between” is dialogical preaching. Doug Pagitt’s Preaching Re-Imagined: The Role of the Sermon in Communities of Faith has done us all a dis-service by coloring the way many people view dialogical preaching. Matt Chandler has summarized dialogical preaching as “going from nothing to nothing.” But this isn’t a fair presentation or an adequate consideration. Pagitt’s understanding and practice are world’s apart from, say, Soma Communities, who also practice dialogical preaching.

I wonder how much of our current understanding and practice of preaching is actually cultural. It seems to me that we have removed it from the synagogues in which it brewed and the Rabbinical teaching methods in which it marinated (both of which were heavy on dialogue). We actually have more biblical snapshots of dialogical teaching than we do of what we would consider “preaching.” The examples where an individual stood in front of a large crowd of primarily already-Believers and talked at them for 45 minutes to an hour without ever taking questions are few and far between, yet that is exactly what we have come to hold up as our tradition.In Acts 20, before the poor sleepy boy fell out of the window, we’re told that Paul “talked with them” (Acts 20:7). Acts 17:2 reminds us that it was Paul’s custom to “reason with them.” Ephesians 4:11-13 reminds us that it is the role of the teacher to equip the saints to do the work of the ministry rather than do it for them.

While I think there’s much more to be said (and that probably needs to be said) about some of the biblical foundations of dialogical preaching, that’s not my aim today. Instead, I hope to just clear up a bit of confusion. In other words: what are we even talking about?! Here are a couple of things to consider:

Dialogical preaching is not conversation: At least not in the way most conversations are conversations. Most conversations are two-sided in the sense that both parties (at least in theory) have equal rights to be heard. It’s a give and take. One party has the power to change the direction of the conversation at will. So, even though one participant may have intended the conversation to go one way, the other participant had other intentions and neither of them found resolution. They conversation didn’t go where either of them intended.

Dialogical preaching does include dialogue, yes. The preacher (and yes, he is still a preacher) does ask questions, elicits feedback and even interaction (GASP!) during the sermon, but the preacher also guides these questions and even the answers. That’s not to say he plants the answers, just that he has a very clear destination in mind (the point of the sermon) and if the dialogue gets off the tracks, it’s his job to put it back on the rail. Think the Socratic method.

Dialogical preaching is not an extended “tell me what you think this text means to you . . . ” jabfest. If you’ve been a Christian for any length of time, chances are that you’ve been to some small group Bible study where the “leader” reads a passage and essentially asks the people what it means to them. The implication here is that there is no right or wrong answer, just what it means to you.

Dialogical preaching is built on sound exegesis. The foundation and even for the most part, the structure of the sermon are identical to most preaching. The preacher has done the hard work of exegesis and is aware that there are, in fact, wrong interpretations of the Bible. Remember above, when I said that the preacher had a clear destination in mind for the sermon, well, apply that here. Though I might ask our church family why an author included a particular line or phrase, the point is not to hear what people think but to equip them. So, good dialogical preaching is not afraid to tell someone that they’re wrong. Yes, you want to be polite about it, especially in a large group dynamic, but the point is to help people work through the passage on their own. So, you walk them through some of the exegetical steps, letting them see them for themselves.

Dialogical preaching is not just verbal “fill-in-the-blanks” sermon follow-alongs. In an attempt to “engage” the congregation, many pastors write up some fill-in-the-blank sermon outlines for people to follow along. Usually, this is meant to help the people follow along, grasp and remember the main points (not necessarily the main point, because these usually accompany bullet-point type sermons). Some people think of dialogical preaching as nothing more than this, except, instead of writing the points down, the people say them out loud.

Dialogical preaching might begin with some more fill-in-the-blank questions to get the people rolling, but if often goes for more application/implication oriented questions. For example, the preacher might ask: “What are some idols that you struggle with . . . ” This is clearly a penetrating question and not everyone is going to answer it out loud, but someone will and then someone else will realize they’re not alone in that struggle and someone else will see that the biblical truth applies to them in a way that they had never realized, but I’m getting ahead of myself. A preacher might ask: “Where are we as a church family succeeding in this/where are we failing/what might it look like for us and our surrounding community if this truth sank deep into our hearts, etc.” These questions are at a different level than the typical fill-in-the-blank sermon outline and when a person comes up with the answer on their own, it’s generally going to be more penetrating than the preacher telling them what their idol is our how we as a local church family fail at something. There is an ownership to biblical truth that is sometimes missing in monologue-preaching.

Though there is much more that can be and needs to be said, I’ll leave it at these two points for now because these are two of the most common pushbacks I receive to the idea of dialogical preaching. Hopefully this helps to clarify, at least a bit.

Last Friday I had the chance to attend Rob Bell’s Phoenix stop for his “Drops Like Stars tour.” This was a minor big deal in and of itself because I come from a theological tradition (Reformed Baptist, both with capitals) that is not generally interested in listening to anyone outside of their immediate circle, unless it is with a specific ear to debate what’s being said. With that being said, I disagree with Bell on several points of important theology, but I was nonetheless interested in seeing him. Regardless of your thoughts on his content, I have come to think of him as one of the best preachers (at least presenters/public speakers) out there today. Here are some initial thoughts from the day:

The first thought I had was how weird it was to be in an auditorium of people who paid to hear a pastor speak. Granted, this wasn’t a certain, it was a dramatic reinterpretation/presentation of Bell’s latest book, but still, the “Christian celebrity culture” is such an odd thing to me. Granted, I was there, so how much room do I really have to talk, but I got my tickets for free, so maybe I have some room? I was reminded that, though we claim to be different on so many levels, we are the same as everyone else on so many levels. We even have our own celebrities. None of this is necessarily Bell’s fault, unless you want to say that by embarking on a “tour” in the first place feeds the celebrity culture.

This celebrity culture is often built around the same things that the world’s celebrity culture is built around: hip people doing/saying things we think we could never do/say. Bell is bright, funny, articulate, charismatic and looks good in all black (trust me, it’s harder than it looks). He presents concepts in understandable yet deep ways and often tweaks things in just such a way that people are left thinking “I wish I had seen that.” In many ways, this is the job of artists and writers and in some sense, it is also the job of pastors. But, where it differs for pastors is that pastors must take that extra step and equip people to do/say the same things they are doing. Ephesians 4:11-16 clearly reminds us that the role of the pastor is not to impress but to equip. I don’t know how well Bell does this in his church in Grand Rapids, but the very notion of a pastor embarking on a “tour” where people pay money to hear him speak; well, I don’t know exactly.

I’ve tried to discern whether or not I just have sour grapes, if I’d like to be the hip pastor who people pay to wow over, but I really don’t think that’s it (as much as I can know my own heart). You might argue that the tour is not part of his role as pastor but as author and even to a lesser extent, artist, so it is perfectly fine. But we’re still dealing with Christian celebrity culture, aren’t we? Is this just an unavoidable byproduct of marinating in the culture that we do?

Bell’s presentation was great. He has commands attention and uses his body and the stage area not just as means to an end, but as part of his presentation as well, marking different points with different positions on the stage, etc. He is a captivating speaker who weaves a variety of allusions together in both the familiar and the unknown in just the right mix. His use of repetition (”his mother’s SUV”) works tremendously to paint vivid mental pictures and his language is at once poetic and simple, not an easy balance. His use of mixed media was spot-on and his timing was impeccable. Many preachers have much to learn here from Bell. I come from a tradition in which the primary role of preaching is information (doctrine) transfer, so it doesn’t matter if you’re an engaging speaker or not.

The danger here, of course is that many of us will simply try to copy Bell’s style. But it’s not our own and everyone (except us for a long time) knows that it’s not our own. While there is much to learn from Bell’s presentation style, there is nothing to be copied. We must learn to be sanctified versions of ourselves rather than watered-down versions of someone else. We must know our context and culture and we must strive to be good at what we do. Bell has obviously worked hard at his craft and that alone is a valuable lesson for many of us. The point is not to become a performer but a better preacher and I really think Bell has some good things to say on the practice of preaching.

The content. I received a couple of e-mails/texts immediately after the show (let’s be honest, that’s what it is) asking what I thought. Though I can’t be sure, I suspect that at least a couple of those messages wanted to know what my concerns were with the content. After all, isn’t Bell one of those people. The content was actually pretty generic if you’ve spent much time thinking about suffering, the Christian life and art. I don’t mean that in any way to belittle Bell’s book or performance, but the point really was that suffering plays an integral part in both the Christian life and the creative process.This something many of us need to think more deeply on. We forget that suffering and the Christian life cannot be separated.

Whatever concerns you may or may not have about Bell’s theology as a whole, this tour really won’t raise many eyebrows. For some, the presentation of the Cross as being God’s solidarity with us may be troublesome, but if it is understood as one aspect of the Cross and not the whole and total, I don’t see anything wrong with this except that it’s not the whole of the truth and I didn’t get the impression that that was Bell’s point. I just wish Bell had made that clarification. His metaphor of life as art is an interesting one, somewhat in line with Donald Miller’s recent thoughts on life as story.

Bell reminds us all of the need for biblical discernment. Just because someone says something very well, that doesn’t mean someone says something very right. I think Bell is a great public speaker but that doesn’t mean I agree with everything he says. In fact, Bell reminds us that, sometimes, the more charismatic the person, the more careful we need to be. It is sometimes the case that when someone is a great public speaker, we implicitly trust them a bit more and let our guard down. Bell serves as a reminder that we need to test everything and everyone.

Now if I could just pull off the all black . . .

I was brought up on a steady diet of 3-5 point sermons giving practical, step-by-step applications of God’s Truth to my life. That is, until I moved into “Reformed” circles where there were several points of theological argumentation to be made before moving to the points of application. As I have made those first few pedals in the training wheels of preaching (I have been preaching “full-time” now for around five years and in many ways, I still feel like a novice), I, of course, followed in the model of moving towards points of practical application (nearly always near the end of the sermon).

However, as I struggled to find points of application to every text, I also became increasingly uncomfortable with this model of preaching. Yes, there are certainly points of what we might consider to be “practical application” in the Scriptures, but they are often more straight-forward than our “application points.” For example, don’t commit adultery, don’t murder others, don’t lie, etc. It began to feel to me, that we were often asking “practical” points because we have become uncomfortable having to exercise discernment on our own.

It also began to occur to me that as a preacher, there was no possible way that I could hit every possible point of application at the end of a sermon that the people under my care needed to hear. Invariably, there would be some smart aleck (much like myself) in the back who would sit there and say to himself well, preacher didn’t hit what I’m struggling with today, so I guess this sermon doesn’t apply to me. What’s more, our society, particularly our “Christian culture” is uncomfortable with any sort of ambiguity. For example, rather than wade through the difficult issues of freedom and Christian liberty, entire denominations have simply decided that it’s easier (and holier looking) to ban something like alcohol outright even though Scripture does no such thing. We forget that people are complex creatures, each with a very different story than the person sitting right next to them. Instead, we adopt a “one size fits all” approach and we believe that if we haven’t told people exactly what to do at the end of the sermon then we’ve failed.

“Application” began to feel a bit like a shortcut to me. Instead of allowing people to wrestle with the Scripture’s impact on their own lives and context, we have told them exactly what to do/say/think. Yet, in reality, the way a particular Scriptural truth weaves itself into my life may not be the same for you. The end-goal is the same: Christ-likeness, but the process may look quite different in my life than yours. What if, instead of application, our sermons looked for implication?

While we may struggle to find a specific “point of application” for everyone every time, certainly the Scripture implicates everyone every time? What I mean is this, we have taken so many pains to make the Scriptures “practical” that we have made them little more than a self-help program, a way to make our lives better and we’ve even given the one-two-three steps to get there, so if you’re life is still a mess, it’s because you didn’t follow the steps well! This positions the pastor as little more than a life-coach. Another issue here is that “points of application” rarely get to the heart. They may modify behaviors, but they rarely get to the heart behind the actions. Over the years, as I’ve become less comfortable trying to offer specific points of practical application (though remember, there are sometimes when they are simply obvious to everyone and should be pointed out), I’ve wondered if perhaps the more appropriate method of connecting the dots of Scripture to life may not be implication rather than application. Dictionary.com defines implicate as:

As Rob Bell (whatever your overall impression of Bell may be, I think he has some good things to say about preaching) says in a recent interview, he strives, in sermons, to hit the “thing behind the thing” or the “truth behind the truth.” In other words, as he says:

When I prepare to teach a text there are a few questions I always ask. First, “What’s the thing behind the thing?” and “What’s the truth behind the truth?” So if we’re talking about tithing, we’re really talking about generosity and participation. And if we’re talking about generosity and participation, then we’re really talking about whether you view the world as a scarcity or as a world governed by a Trinitarian God. Is the universe at its core a sliced-up pie where you grab your slice and then protect and defend it? Or do you believe that at the core there is an endlessly self-giving, loving community of God we are invited to step into?

So you can talk about tithing–giving your 10 percent. Or you can wrestle with a scarcity versus a Trinitarian view of the universe with tithing perhaps being an implication at the end of the message.

As Bell points out, the practical application may be that we need to be more generous. But we still haven’t hit the heart. We should be more generous because we serve a generous God who gives us life and breath and His own Son. He gives us life abundantly. Our more “practical” mindset actually often neglects certain people. For example, Bell says:

If you say we’re going to do a series on marriage for the next five weeks, there’s a chance that people who’s aren’t married, who are single, or who are divorced are going to think,Well, I guess I don’t have to show up for five weeks.

Another way to approach the subject is to see marriage as one of the applications of the truth behind the truth. The truth behind the truth would lead you to preach one week on being honest, the next on apologizing, and the next on serving others. Those truths apply to everyone. And then each week you might include a point on how it applies to marriage.

Striving towards implication in a sermon may at times seem like some sermons come to a more awkward ending, but, Lord willing, the people will leave truly wrestling with how the Gospel, through that text should change their life. This requires more of the members. It require that they be willing to interact with the text and the sermon. It requires that they pursue holiness in their own lives. It requires introspection and action.

I’m not saying that there is no place for application in sermons. I’m just wondering if we’ve tried to make it more simple than it really is, and, by “implication,” less powerful than it should be. Is it really the preacher’s job to apply the text to each person’s life in the room or faithfully proclaim the Word and let the Spirit implicate whom He will how He will?

For some time now I’ve been hearing lots of pastor friends talk about the benefits of Mind Mapping for sermon preparation and other uses. I was not familiar with the concept, so after some research, it looked quite interesting. I have never been a fan of the idea that sermons must be outlined in a three (or more if you’re really Reformed)-point model. I don’t think in a linear model and I’ve always struggled with finding the right flow to idea development and presentation flow.

That’s exactly where mind mapping comes in. It allows you to visually organize concepts around a central concept. While similar to an outline in theory, it is actually much more intuitive because it allows ideas to freely flow without being forced into an already-existing pattern (though in a sense, this is still what you’re doing). You can visually see how concepts relate and connect.

For me, this works best after I’ve done my exegetical work in my Moleskine (yes, I know, let the “hipster” ridicule begin, but seriously, it is the best notebook I’ve used!). So, I spend the beginning part of the week working through the text with pen and paper, opening a Mind Map, looking for that central, uniting theme of the sermon. Then, later in the week, once that theme has emerged, I work through a mindmap of the sermon, sometimes after working through a mindmap of the text itself (this is done in conjunction with Bible Arcing, but I personally find mind mapping the text itself quite helpful). The combination of pen and paper exegetical work with mind mapping then allows me to preach without notes. I do take a copy of my mind map into the pulpit with me but I rarely look at it. After downloading the free trial of Mindjet, I was hooked.

I’ve been asked by several people to see what a sermon might look like in a mind map, so I’m including a coupe here to look at. This first one is an incomplete map of the sermon I’m currently working through from Acts 15. We are considering Acts 15 in conjunction with Romans 14 and 1 Corinthians 8. In Acts 15, the Apostles specifically to avoid meat sacrificed to idols while in Romans and Corinthians, Paul makes allowance for it (for a bigger version click on the image):

Here is a mindmap from a sermon on Acts 13:48: “And when the Gentiles heard this, they began rejoicing and glorifying the word of the Lord, and as many as were appointed to eternal life believed” (again, for a larger version simply click on the image):

I’m certainly no expert on this and there are readers here more experienced in this than I am but I wanted to pass this along. Hopefully it will be a benefit for you.

My favorite sermon this year is from Matt Chandler, preaching at my Alma mater, Southern Seminary. No, I don’t think hell has frozen over, though Chandler himself makes a joking reference to the fact that he is preaching there at all. A powerful sermon made all the more so after subsequent revelations of Chandler’s cancer:

I love preaching. I’m not saying I’m great at it, just that I love it. While I know people who affirm the veracity of the statement, it just baffles me that so many people would rather be the one in the casket than the one preaching the euology. People fear death more than public speaking! It’s difficult to explain, but preaching for me is invigorating. There’s just something about engaging a room full (”full” is, of course, subjective) with God’s Word.

As you might expect, preaching is something I spend a lot of time, preparing for, thinking about and even talking about with others. It’s one of those things that seems somewhat like riding a bike. You can try to explain to someone how to do it, but at the end of the day, they have to get on a bike and actually do it to understand it. If anyone can find a reference I would greatly appreciate it but I’ve heard several times that Tim Keller has said that you need to preach about 300 times before you get any good. Please bear with me, because I’m nowhere near 300!

Ed Stetzer recently posted an interview he did with Andy Stanley, pastor of North Point Church in which Stanley says that “preaching by points is a terrible model.” If you’ve read Stanley’s helpful little book Communicating for Change, you know why he says this. If not, you’ll just have to read the article and the book. In short, Stanley summarizes his approach this way:

Preaching on Sunday mornings is such a simple thing and by complicating it, I think we all do ourselves and the audience a disservice. It is very simple. Here is the model: Make people feel like they need an answer to a question. Then take them to God’s Word to answer the question. And tell them why it is important to do what we just talked about. And then you close by saying, “Wouldn’t it be great if everybody did that?” And that’s it. It is a journey. You take people from somewhere to somewhere.

You may or may not agree with Stanley, but he brings up the interesting notion that the “common” way of preaching: break the text up into three (ideally alliterated) points may not be the only or even the best way to communicate God’s Truth. It may seem silly, but I can’t tell you what a liberating idea this has been for me. I have spent most of my formative Christian years in “Reformed” circles that has first preach to communicate information (doctrine) and only second and sometimes accidentally for life change. I had found myself drifting away from that model but not really knowing why. Though I don’t agree with everything Stanley says, his approach (which we’ll see in a moment) provided me with a much needed step away from the “three points and a prayer” model.

All of this leads to much discussion among friends. I have found myself having several discussions lately with friends and the topic of preparation and study has come up. If, following Stanley’s model, your sermon should only have one main point, how do you come up with that point. One of the things I love to try to do is “lift the curtain” on preaching, so that people can see how you got to your sermon from the text. I use four different “grids” that I run every text through and this system has been tremendously helpful, so I thought I would pass it along.

First is a series of questions adapted from a sermon preached by Mark Driscoll in which he was addressing this very question. I don’t have a specific reference, so if anyone knows and can give a link, that would be much appreciated. Driscoll’s questions to ask of the text are:

1. What does the Bible say?
2. What does the Bible mean?
3. What is the “take-away” point - what is the hook? - what makes it memorable?
4. Why/how is their objection to Scriptural truth - consider objections
5. Why does this matter - SO WHAT?/NOW WHAT?
6. How is Jesus the Hero/Where is Jesus in the text? What does this teach us about Jesus

What I love about these questions is that it not only points you to the main point of the text, it does so through Jesus. I’ve been to church services and never once heard the name of Jesus, which is heart-breaking. The steps are pretty self-explanatory; you restate the text’s message, then interpret it, then begin to apply it, thinking of application points as well as objections.

The second phase of my preparation builds from the first, continuing to work towards the core of the text. Though some of the ideas are repeated, I still find this set of questions tremendously helpful. It is adapted from Daniel Doriani’s book Putting the Truth to Work and I originally came across them in Doriani’s session on the parable of the Hidden Treasure in the Modern Parables DVD curriculum. They are:

1. What is my duty - What must I do?
2. Character - What must I be?
3. Goals - Where should I go? (unique)
4. Vision/Discernment/Judgment - How can I learn to see the world God’s way?

Again, these are pretty straight-forward, but we’re moving towards direct application of the text to everyday life. If we’re preaching for life-change instead of mere information transfer, these steps are tremendously helpful. I try to have an idea of what my one point/overarching theme (#3 in Driscoll’s questions) of the sermon will be by this point and I try to answer each of Doriani’s questions with this in mind.

This leads us to Stanley’s approach. As noted, he views preaching as a journey and suggests we preach from “maps” as opposed to outlines. His basic map flows as follows:

• Me
• We
• God
• You
• We

Essentially, using this model, you begin by proving yourself trustworthy. You share a bit about yourself, preferably as it relates to the sermon at hand. As you are with a church body longer and longer, this step can become shorter and shorter, though you will always have visitors who will not know anything about you.

Then, in Stanley’s approach, you establish the universal problem or question. He suggests spending as much time here as needed to establish true interest/concern/need for what God’s Word says. Then, of course, he moves from the problem/question to God’s answer/solution. This is also the doctrine/explanation part but it is intentionally couched in a more practical manner. Then the “You” section is the specific point of application you want the people to make (though it could be more than one) and you close by essentially painting a picture of what it would look like if we all actually lived according to God’s Word.

Though each approach has its strengths and weaknesses, I find that for me, they work very well when combined, forcing me to consider the text in ways that are not necessarily natural to me, always with the goal of life-change in mind.

If you preach/teach, what do you do? How do you prepare? What goal are you aiming for? If you don’t teach but instead listen to sermons, what approach connects most powerfully with you? Why?