pat loughery

In the last day or two I’ve been spending time over at Bob Hyatt‘s blog and listening to his podcasts, and finding yet another close relative in this style of church and ministry.

I’ve not yet met Bob in real life or even email, but I do see his comments over on Radical Congruency and other places around the web and really enjoy them. Which is why what I experienced when reading his blog, and especially listening to his podcasts was all the more powerful.

Bob’s podcasts are great – in addition to recording his sermon//discussion, he also courageously records his thoughts before and after his church’s worship gatherings. Bob’s clearly a very good teacher and discussion leader.

And I think he’s doing an awesome job of describing the feelings that a “preaching pastor” (if I can even use that term in the sermon//discussion world that we are experimenting in) experiences before and then after the gathering. I think he’s courageous for doing it too – I have thought about something similar, but my personality runs far too much on the extreme of “I don’t usually believe there’s a God again till after Monday afternoon”, though I’m getting better at that.

I was mesmerized as I listened to Bob’s thoughts in the gathering and then before/after, as I realized how closely what Evergreen Life does with this part of its time mirrors what Mt. Si Vineyard does with this time. As I was listening, I was thinking, “wow! These two churches have never met and come from different theological foundations (at least that’s my assumption), and yet here’s a community interacting with Scripture and being formed by it in a way that’s incredibly similar to what we do. ” It was so encouraging to me to hear this church – a sister church in God’s kingdom – exploring the same things we’re exploring and having great success.

I wrote a bit of a manifesto of the discussion sermon form for my own self a while ago, and you can read that entry here. You may also have heard of Doug Pagitt’s Preaching Re-Imagined, in which Doug lays the foundation for a dialogical sermon form.

In listening to Bob’s podcasts, I noticed these commonalities between his work and what we try to do:

1. Considering Scripture in this way encourages — and I think, demands — that we look at larger chunks of a passage. Very seldom can we spend 30-45 minutes as a community discussing a verse or two, because that work often requires deep research around Hebrew and Greek linguistics, and this can often feel bogged down and not easily doable by the community – only the learned minister can do that. As a general rule of thumb, we try to look at a chapter at a time. This is by no means a hard-and-fast rule, but looking at larger sections of the story give us a much better perspective and context.

2. Discussions often reference other Scriptural stories that the community is living out in its own life. In a recent discussion for us on the image of sculpture as spiritual formation, we were looking at Romans 5:2-5, but looked at the meaning of “hope” in Paul’s letters, and then expanded more on the Romans 8:28 that everybody can quote, but frequently don’t see the connection to Romans 8:29 (which transitions you from health-and-wealth to the discipleship and spiritual formation world).

3. A discussion allows the leader to more easily see who’s “getting it”. You can hear the a-ha moments and encourage those. This is particularly helpful in a community with mixed spiritual backgrounds. I hear Bob encouraging his community members’ thoughts differently- sometimes spending quite a bit of time building up an individual’s confidence and grasp.

4. A discussion allows the leader to not have to be the only expert on a subject – and more powerfully, it allows the leader to say, “hey, I’ve studied and prayed and read through this part, but I’m still not sure what it means.”. The community’s voice(s) contribute – and they also realize that they can continue seeking after answers.

5. A discussion gives room for differing viewpoints on nonessential matters. It allows us the freedom to say, “I see it this way, you see it that way” and still be friends. There is instant feedback on these topics, and a difference of perspectives builds the community. Of course, that’s for nonessential matters – we are able to work toward common understanding of essential matters. But if I ever do a sermon series on the perspectives of tribulation and rapture, I’m free to say, “Here’s how I understand this stuff. The important part is that Jesus is returning for his bride, the church. We can disagree on the form and timing of that, and I’d love for you to tell me why you believe what you do and how it impacts your daily life.”

6. Discussion forms also allow creative room for experiential interaction. On one of Bob’s discussions, they considered the story of Jairus’ daughter and the unclean, bleeding woman. They talked about the times that we see other people being blessed by God, but none of it seems to be coming our way. They had experiential means of individualizing that struggle as well – very simple, but very effective.

There are other similarities as well, but I should stop here and work on our discussion about the Holy Spirit’s role in prayer for next weekend. Go check out Bob’s stuff; you’ll appreciate it.