I approached this course with mixed motives, mixed feelings and mixed expectations. It would be good to do an intensive which helps get the work out of the way quickly and also enforces a time restriction. I also wanted to learn more about a post-modern context. Apart from the personal there was also the motive of another area of knowledge that would benefit Worldview (the training college where I am on staff).
I had mixed feelings because as much as I enjoy learning I don’t like the discipline of assignments etc. and I am still feeling a little burned out from trying to handle a full time studying load with a full time teaching load. My family are also feeling that I am spending too little time with them. We have only had one week for a holiday together in 2 years because of the shift to Tassie and studying as well. (Not looking for sympathy, I have enjoyed most of it)
I did expect to learn something but was not sure what. I wanted to learn about the post-modern context, but mostly I wanted to learn how to communicate within that context. I suppose the kind of things I wanted show that I am not post-modern. I wanted some clear definitions, some clear instructions and good old propositional truths.
What I got was so much more. The box of definitions was broken, the use of imagination was celebrated and all my longings to do a new thing were validated. For years I have hated the formula approach so often espoused in ministry and in Christian life. You too can be a better Christian if you follow this pattern (whatever pattern it may be), you too can make your church grow if you do A B C. And so it goes on. What a contradiction in my desires, wanting clear instructions but wanting to break free from formulas.
The course validated a lot of the methods I have been using for years but went beyond that and showed me a way to enhance and strengthen them. As a missionary I have looked at cross-cultural communication and cultural anthropology. I have studied ways to communicate with an illiterate people group, how too use images and stories. I have collected and used proverbs and local myths and legends. I have used film, drama, flip charts, object lessons, story telling and plain old three point sermons. I am open to whatever gets the message across.
The course with Steve though showed me a flaw in all of this as valuable and effective as it has been. This flaw was maintaining control. I used all these methods to communicate what I had already decided was important. The methods might have been novel but it was still the expert passing on his knowledge. The major impact on me was the need to work with others to find the meaning for the community. The need to be humble enough to put the word their before the community in a powerful way but allow others to interact with the word and see what it had to say to the community.
Through Godly-play, the use of environments, story telling and other methods I can work with the congregation or study group to draw out their feelings, their thoughts and what it means for them today. This not only validates them but validates the work of the Spirit in them. This then gives incentive to live it out because it is no longer what the pastor or lecturer in my case, tells them to do but it is God himself.
I was able to put a small part of this into practice both on Sunday when preaching in a bretheren church and on Wednesday when leading our staff’s prayers. When asked to write 1000 words of exegetical notes on Luke 1:39-45 I really wondered if I could find enough in it. When we worked on it together I was amazed at the amount we wrote on the whiteboard but still wasn’t convinced about its impact on lives. As we worked on it in our group it worked its way deeper into my soul and the flesh and blood reality of it began to affect me. I now treasure that small passage.
At the bretheren church I asked people to identify how they would feel as the various characters. A number of the older women spoke up (usually a no no) and as we looked at Mary the younger ones spoke up, and also the men identified with Zacharias. As a congregation we could then share about where joy originates, what it is to be blessed and a number of issues. The time flew by and people spoke to me positively afterwards.
At the prayer meeting I again asked about emotions and then explored what this meant in light of praying for people. It was good to draw out how we felt we should pray for people. We then prayed for various ones to be blessed, not in the usual sense of good health, material things etc. but we prayed for people to be blessed by knowing the favour of God upon them, by moving in obedience and by being used to further his kingdom whatever the circumstances.
I have always wanted others to think for themselves and make discoveries for themselves. In my lecturing I seek to put information before the students but get them to engage with the material and make it their own. In teaching history I don’t major on dates or names but principles that can be drawn from what happened. This course was encouragement to do that even more. It was also an encouragement to use the same principles in my church ministry context.
My desire is to see both my students and the members of my church community not just reading the word but dwelling in it. That whether it be by looking at artworks, listening to music or playing in sand pits they will see the hand of God, hear the voice of God and feel the touch of God. I desire that all the senses are used in allowing the bible to inform us, communicate God’s heart to us, form us and enable us to be the people of God in our setting.
6 comments:
Response #1 to Don George’s Blog
Having spent so many years in study and ministry Don has become an ‘expert’ but – and this is a big ‘but’” – Don’s new missiological environment has become less impressed by the ‘expert’. Fifty years ago Don, the bank manager and the doctor would have been the most educated members of his community. Today all that has changed.
Perhaps the role of ‘leader’ must become more subtle. But how? Leaders are still meant to lead. Left to their own devices the ‘sheep’ can still get themselves into trouble. McSpadden writes that ‘post-modern churchgoers... have a shrinking biblical literacy.’ (McSpadden 2003, p.4)
Perhaps the answer lies in the use of metaphor. (Sweet 2002, p. 2) Don is no longer a Sergeant-Major in the army of God, exercising simple authority. Don is now like a guide, leading travellers through the mountains, an expert still (Baker n.d., p. 3), but one who engages in conversational and collaborative leadership. Perhaps flexibility is the key – exercising different leadership and ministry styles as the situation demands. Perhaps Don’s role is to be less hierarchical, more collaborative and more like the Ephesians 4 ministry gifts, releasing (with wisdom) the body’s gifts and expertise. (Rose 1997, ch. 5 p. 3)
References:
Baker, J n.d., ‘Preaching – Throwing a Hand Grenade in the Fruit Bowl. Something has to change.’ Retrieved from < http://johnnybaker.blogs.com/johnnybaker/text/Preaching.pdf >.
McSpadden, C 2003, ‘Preaching Scripture Faithfully in a Postmodern Age’ in E.F. Davis and R.B. Hays (eds), The Art of Reading Scripture, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, pp. 125-142.
Rose, LA 1997, Sharing the Word: Preaching in the Roundtable Church, 1st ed., Westminster John Knox Press, Louisville KY.
Sweet, 2002, ‘The Metaphor Moment (Part One)’, National Pastors Convention. Retrieved from < http://nationalpastors.com/2002/resources/articles/metaphor1.htm >.
Response #2 to Don George’s Blog
I noticed that you have already implemented ideas such as encouraging others to enter into the text, considering different perspectives and entering into the emotions of others. I suspect that this would have enhanced the time of prayer because intercession is about praying on behalf of others (and particularly those who cannot pray for themselves) while entering into their world.
Encouraging other views helps deconstruct rigid interpretations of the past while creating the opportunity for new insights (Johnson 2003, pp. 116-117). It appears that even this act, in a Brethren setting, allowed other voices to be heard, even if the men only connected with Zacharias. As Baker writes, ‘in the gospels it is actually often... those with no power... who have the most profound insights....’ (Baker n.d., p.3]
I know nothing about this Brethren church but somehow you must have connected with this group in such a way that you created a safe space for people to speak publicly, possibly for the first time. This ties in with McSpadden who note that the ‘sermon as hospitable environment for wondering, rumination, and imagination encourages growth and change out of desire and delight’. (McSpadden 2003, p. 8)
References:
Johnson, WS 2003, ‘Reading the Scriptures Faithfully in a Postmodern Age’ in E.F. Davis and R.B. Hays (eds), The Art of Reading Scripture, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, pp. 109-124.
McSpadden, C 2003, ‘Preaching Scripture Faithfully in a Postmodern Age’ in E.F. Davis and R.B. Hays (eds), The Art of Reading Scripture, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, pp. 125-142.
Thanks Peter for your comments, I have always enjoyed the description of expert as being 'a has been drip under pressure'. (ex = has been, spert = spurt, lots of drips gushing out together). But back to the course.
I like your metaphor of being a guide. Most of the people I have worked with over the last 15 years have either zero or close to zero bible literacy being Muslim villagers. To engage with them I told bible stories, used images and used their own proverbs and stories. I often felt I was a guide leading them into new country to see with their own eyes the beautiful things I had been led to by other guides.
I can identify with Pierce, cited by Sweet (Sweet 2002, p.1) when he says preaching can be relationship based. To be able to refer to their fields, livestock, families and their stories I established a relationship and gained a hearing. When I did preach in the city churches a more structured propositional style (Jones, Preaching, March-April 2005) was expected. However when I still used the stories the people in the pews appreciated it and usually got more from it.
To function in a post-modern context is a lot more than preaching though. The need to be relationship centred. Gibbs in Leadership Next mentions a ‘desire for church structures that are more relational, with less emphasis on a stage-managed professional performance and a greater focus on the need for active participation in the worship experience, ministry to one another, and mission in the world’(Gibbs 2005, p.19). He also discusses leadership as shared authority and relationship based (Gibbs 2005, p.31).
Gibbs, 2005, ‘Leadership Next’, IVP, Leicester
Jones RC ‘Evaluating the Sermon’ Preaching, March-April 2005, pp16-23
Sweet, 2002, ‘The Metaphor Moment (Part One)’, National Pastors Convention. Retrieved from < http://nationalpastors.com/2002/resources/articles/metaphor1.htm >.
Hi Don,
I am glad to hear that some of things we learnt had an effect in your preaching. For many years now I too have dislike the ABC formula used in many churches. One of the marks of postmodernism is that there is not a set method for growth or church health. In regards to preaching, William Johnson stated that it is not enough to nail down the meaning of the text but we must put ourself in a position to recognise what God has done in the past as well as to discern what God is doing in the present (p.116). Most healthy churches I hear about have always had really good preaching, preaching which can discern the voice of God – regardless of the denomination.
I too like the idea of changing environments and methods for our services. I think that godly play could be a way of doing this. I admire Berryman’s humility in saying that children taught him to teach (p26). If they can do this then they can respond to scripture and hear the voice of God. I was struck by the concept of wondering in godly play (34-36) as it can lead to places that were not possible if we stick having an expert up the front telling the people what to believe and what to avoid.
Johnson W, “Reading the Scriptures Faithfully in a Postmodern Age” The Art of Reading Scripture Davis E & Hays R (eds) (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003)
Berryman J, Godly Play: An Imaginative Approach to Religious Education New York: Augsburg Fortress Pub, 1995
Hi Don
Yes I think the Café presentation went well. I am looking forward to the chance to give it a run in real space and see how it goes.
I didn’t know about the street drama you were talking about in the medieval period and it is encouraging to hear about such things; it helps me understand the rich diversity of ways that the Spirit of God has used his church on earth over time. I actually reckon I’d enjoy good quality street theatre, both in the audience and as a member of the presenting team. When I was a child the Christian Television Association ran some adds, including mime, that communicated empathy in difficult times. I was not a church kid but that message encouraged me in ways I would not easily put into words.
Have you read what John Drane (2000, p. 15, 16) says about clowning? He recalls travelling with his wife who does clown skits and being dismayed, not knowing how to connect his sermons with unchurched, spiritually open audiences. He writes “my wife’s clown characters seemed to know exactly how to do it- and just got on with the job… people of all ages, races and social classes responded to her message, no matter whether it was in a regular church or some religiously neutral venue” (p. 15). The commitments made in the creative ‘space’ his wife’s clowning made caused him to conclude that regular churches are failing to provide “spaces for people to make commitments… that many people seemed to be looking for a way of exploring spirituality that would be … embodied” (p. 16). Maybe our own time is ripe for the kind of street drama you described. There is a clown at my church, who does a good job but she rarely takes a platform- that I know about anyway. I think I am going to talk to her about her ministry.
Drane, J. 2000, The McDonaldization of the Church, Spirituality, creativity and the Future of the church, Darton, Longman & Todd, London.
Your reflection demonstrates a teacher’s heart as you describe your desire that the hearers, or learners, think and make discoveries for themselves. The same sentiment is echoed by Jones (2005) as he focuses on what makes a good sermon. His expressed goal is that preaching should ‘transform the lives of our hearers and expand the Kingdom of God on the earth’ (p23). Strategies to achieve this include; being invitational and using eye contact. He also promotes the good use of stories and illustrations as they help the listeners to experience, whereas explanations just help them to understand. Transparency of the speaker and sharing real life experiences ‘suggests an identification with the listening audience, and a transparency that makes for authenticity…audiences tend to be drawn to preachers who are open and candid, especially as it relates to the struggles of life’ (p19). Most importantly, even in our post-modern context, people still want to know that what they are listening to is exegetically sound. At the end of the day Jones adds that there are many extraneous factors that can affect the impact of the sermon, over which we have no control; the preceding worship time, current local and global events or the mood of the congregation. Even so he challenges all those in such a teaching position to prepare well!
References:
Jones, RC 2005, 'Evaluating the Sermon: Ten Elements to Consider: After you Preach', Preaching, vol. March, pp. 16-23.
Post a Comment