People are leaving their churches because they feel excluded. Excluded from participating in the communication of the message.
This is one of the unanticipated findings in sociologist Josh Packard’s research on the Dones–formerly active church members who have walked away from all institutional religion. These are people who have heard countless sermons. They tend to be quite biblically literate. But they grew weary, very weary, of sitting in pews, feeling muzzled, while the person on stage monopolizes every word.
In his new book Church Refugees, Packard describes Liam who left his lifelong church because he “wanted dialogue as opposed to lecture.” Rather than only passively listen to the pastor’s take on matters of faith, Liam wanted to participate somehow. He had questions. But the one-way communication format at his church would not allow for any interchange. “It was all authority and hierarchy,” he said. “And that was the final straw in getting us to leave.”
Liam, like many others in Packard’s research, found their spiritual growth stunted without the opportunity to engage in the conversation. Jill, another of Packard’s interviewees, said, “It’s in relationships and conversations that I find God.”
Many current church leaders would say their churches accommodate conversation and give-and-take in small groups and classes. They just prohibit it during the main Sunday services. “That’s my time to do all the talking,” a pastor told me. But it’s during this prime time when people want to engage.
In soon-to-be-released follow-up research, Packard found that 53 percent of the Dones agreed with the statement, “I didn’t like the lecture style of preaching.” (By the way, this new study also reveals the same sentiment in millions of current church members who say they’re about to join the Dones.)
Many church leaders can’t even imagine a sermon time that would accommodate congregational interaction. Even though Jesus frequently involved people in his teachings, and the early church likely involved everyone regularly, the current rendition of weekly church services is stuck in monologue mode.
Moving from monologue to dialogue
So what would a more interactive model look like? Let me give you a few actual examples.
In my home church, the pastor involves the congregation through thoughtful questions. Glen typically talks for a few minutes, then asks the congregants to turn to someone and discuss a question. Everyone participates. He then typically asks for a few people to share insights from their conversations with the whole congregation. Often, Glen then incorporates their responses and questions into the rest of his sermon.
At Steve Simms’ church in Tennessee, he opens up the message time for worshippers to share their insights, scriptures, words of encouragement, and prayers. “Most people share two to five minutes,” he says. “We allow it to continue until it stops.”
David Murrow, author of Why Men Hate Going to Church, wrote recently: “In church we love the 25- to 45-minute teaching monologue. Then, based on this logical discourse, lives are supposedly changed. Sometimes this method works. Most of the time it doesn’t–especially with men.” So now Murrow uses what he calls the 10-10 format. He speaks for 10 minutes, then stops and asks people to clump in groups of two, three or four, and talk for 10 minutes about a question he projects on the screen. Then he comes back for 10 minutes, and so on.
The conversational approach is also the hallmark of the Lifetree Cafe ministry in use in hundreds of locations across North America.
A well-known megachurch pastor told me that he knows this kind of interaction is far more effective than straight lecture-style preaching. “But you just can’t do that once you have more than 150 people,” he said. He’s wrong. He’s never seen it done. But I can tell you from personal experience. For decades I’ve spoken before crowds of thousands and successfully used these techniques, with powerful results.
Engaging with God and his word should not be a mere spectator sport. People engage more, learn more, and grow more when they participate. (That’s true with this blog as well. Chime in.)
Steve Simms’s ‘model’ is nearer the mark, imho. It’s one we’ve used for years, with lives being transformed. From time to time there is need for a short ‘teaching’ perhaps, on a particular subject (at the moment one of our members is relating how her life has been changed through engaging with Watchman Nee’s book on the life of Abraham), again with much participation and application. Such teaching is validated by Eph. 4:11ff etc, for example – the teaching is horizontal and servant-like rather than vertical and dogmatic, i.e. six foot above contradiction.
Personally I don’t like the ‘model’ where the preacher gets to draw up the questions, it doesn’t allow for creativity, diversity and out-of-the-box questions. Done that in my cell church pastoring days, but it soon becomes stale and develops into a ‘program.’
I tend to agree with you, errollmulder, regarding not liking the preacher to draw up all the questions. As a pastor, I’ve wanted to get to exactly what you’re stating. It was why I started our fellowship in this way over 5 years ago! But in my case, ALL of my fellowship is still too inexperienced so far to contribute in the way I would like. I first invite their questions, but I am usually forced to do the asking myself.
By the way, we have a very successful House to House ministry that is growing and thriving.
thanks for this- we’re exploring how to introduce this kind of teaching into a fairly traditional church structure… any thoughts or advice on that journey would be appreciated!
acdodwell….My advice: Don’t attempt to draw the whole church into this at the same time. Your “old timers” will not recognize it as church and you’ll alienate them! Build your new ways around their ways. Don’t attempt to blend them until your “old timers” insist upon it. Then it is their idea and you’ll get significant buy in!
But begin a separate service that resembles more like a college classroom. Understand that not just the pastor can answer all the questions brought up and also understand that just not the pastor can ask all the questions!
I generally use an exercise to get to the root of prayer needs and gauge where those in the meeting are at the time and if the Holy Spirit directs, we teach to those most pressing needs of the day/week. If we are not led in that direction, I usually have a topic that is applicable to our group and will lead a discussion on it–we take turns reading from scripture, everyone who wants to gets to participate.
When the Holy Spirit moves us, we sing. As the Holy Spirit directs, we’ll interrupt everything and pray. No agenda. No schedule of events.
If we have a new person with us, all of the rest of us are prepared to move toward whatever direction that new person leads us. If he or she has a lot of questions, that’s where we go. All new people with questions get preference from our group before anything else. We teach to the new person. Also, everyone in our group is predisposed to shower our guest with love. Invites to coffee, to go jogging, to join in at the yogurt stand–trust me, new people get loved on!
Soon after a person begins with us, we try to plug that person into a peer or a person in our group that has mutual affinity to form a CO2 group. A CO2 is a church of 2 or a disicipleship pair. Each discipleship pair has a disciple and a discipler. The discipler is being descipled by another so as to “teach all the commands that I have given you.”
The strength of our fellowship lies with our discipleship groups. Discipleship is where the wheel meets the road with our fellowship. By the way, we don’t refer to ourselves as a church because only people can be a church. Our fellowship is only a part of the church. We never invite people to “come to church,” we invite people to come meet some people in the church. Trust me, eventually you get used to it.
As we discover “leaders” and “persons of peace” we develop new small groups around those people. We equip them and walk along side them as they gather friends and family to their small group and see where the Holy Spirit leads.
Then we rinse and repeat.
Interesting!
Bill, I was delighted to see your comments about the CO2. We call this “the basic building block of all larger expressions of church”. I’m curious to know where you learned about them.
For more on CO2 (church of two), go here http://www.lk10.com/church-101-resources-2/
At the minimum, take some time for questions and answers OR start a Wednesday evening discussion group in your home where anyone and everyone can come, talk, ask questions, and eat popcorn! I knew an Anglican pastor who did this and it was one of the most fun, refreshing groups I’ve ever been in. Everybody loves to be loved, and everybody wants to feel that they are included in a group. Giving them a chance to talk, ask, and get to know you personally does this 1000 times better than the Sunday service alone.
Hmmmm. Sounds like it could be fun. Not sure it would go well in my very traditional rural charge. But maybe once in a while?
Reblogged this on Essential Thinking and commented:
A really thoughtful and challenging post about how we teach and learn in church… I’d be interested to hear about any churches that have developed into this, and how they found it…
🙂 We’re 5 years in so far!
Congregational interaction on Sunday morning is a necessary shift. Our culture is changing in ways that do not support lecture-based teaching.
Marge, I think the younger generation of pastors are trying to be more open but us older more ready to die preachers don’t know how to change.
billy@firstchurchwilson.com — I’m 60 years old and I’m Southern Baptist!
The up and coming generation will love it and in some cases demand it. I tried it as a pastor and the teens and young adults (up to about 39) loved it. However those more accustomed to a traditional service didn’t like it. Culture also has a heavy play in it too.
In African American culture – preaching has transcended into an entertainment art form. People literally decide if a person can or can’t “preach” and artistic ability plays heavy in that culture (especially among the older people – the young people are changing). Many people come to church to be entertained – however youth want to be engaged.
The direction you are pointing makes a lot of sense, though it sounds like an introvert’s worst nightmare 🙂
Not necessarily …
If the questions and replies are taken seriously by the people you are talking to, if the group is small (2 or 3 max) and there is little need for opening small talk with someone you are unlikely to see again, then this introvert would welcome it.
Our 2 or 3 max groups are called CO2’s or Church of 2’s–that’s our discipleship teams. Our gatherings for the assembling of the saints number up to 15 max. Once we get between 12 and 15, we look to divide that group into two!
As an introvert, 2 is really the max group size for me. As soon as the 3rd person or more join, I auto-shut-up while the other two engage in a conversation. I might throw 2 cents in here and there. I am a one-on-one person. I talk to my neighbors one-on-one over the fence and converse quite well. Group activities just don’t work. The problem with those like me, either not currently going to church is with no desire to go to church because of it being a group activity we’ll never know about or get engaged into a CO2. The other problem with introverts is we have a very small ring of people in our lives and kindred spirits are far and few between. Genuinely connecting with other people is rare. You can’t just stick us with someone and think we’ll just connect. It’s not so simple.
I’m 67 with 25 years as a Presbyterian pastor. I had to leave the institutional church 16 years ago and have found a thriving network of participatory church “out there”. See http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/39787679#39787679
It’s time for everyone including the pastor sit down and shut up. How about the lousy musicians with their rock guitars be sent packing and we begin to honor God with adult like prayer and mature singing?
It’s OK to gather with others who relate to God in the same manner as you, but others need the freedom to gather and worship in the way the Holy Spirit directs them! Even King David danced! But that is the beauty of small group gatherings. People of common style, likes and dislikes can gather together and honor God in the best way they know how.
I’ve got young people that behave and talk in ways that drive some of my older, more mature people nuts. The beauty is they don’t have to meet together. Those who are mature that are called to mentor wisdom to the youth do so. Those who are mature and need space to themselves without the “silliness” of some of the younger people do not need to subject to it. We can minister to all cultures and people groups!
“Go make disciples of all nations, baptizing them… and teaching them all the commands I have given you.” That is our charge.
I think you have accurately identified the perspective of the growing number of the “dones”. (“We want to participate!”) However, the solutions you share are only about tweaking the traditional church model. While this is a small step in the right direction, it is the growing house church movement that truly allows for significant participation in church.
The Pew Research from from a few years ago reported that 9% of American Protestants now say that a house church is their only form of church. http://www.nbcnews.com/video/nightly-news/39787679#39787679 Likely this is the fastest growing segment of the American church! And, biblically we know that every church mentioned in the Bible met in a home and functioned like a small spiritual family (high participation!). This was true for at least the first three hundred years.
I would like to see you give significant attention to the house church movement as one destination for the “dones”. I know this can be threatening to traditional churches but it certainly seems like something God is doing. See “Revolution” by Barna. See also LK10.com
Back in the day….we always had “testimony service” before the sermon. Someone was called up from the congregation to “lead” it and it could go for up to 20 or 30 minutes. It was my favorite part of church when I was a child. People would share an answered prayer or an enlightened scripture that touched them during the last week. Sometimes they would just stand and tell others how much they loved the Lord or remark on something for which they were especially thankful.
I am now an old lady but I still remember some of those precious sharing of the saints.
There’s nothing like the anointed testimonies of passionate Christ-followers!
House church’s became popular in the 1970,s but slowly faded away.
I believe this is the people who only want to spend one hour a week in church. There are lots of opportunities for open discussion if people thought God was worth a little more of their time.
Many just want it their way and not God’s. How can you have open dialogue between one minister and hundreds of parishioners in one to two hours on Sunday mornings?
Kirby, good dialogue is not limited to connecting with just the minister. If you embrace the concept of the “priesthood of all believers,” there’s always a “priest” beside you to dialogue with. That’s what happens in the examples I provided in the article.
Being an 85 year old Christian I have heard innumerable sermons. During this time I have developed my 5-10-15-20 minute philosophy about speakers. A poor speaker can hold my attention for five minutes, the fair speaker can keep me involved for ten, the good speaker for fifteen and an excellent may maintain my attention for twenty but after that my mind wanders and he or she loses me. Why do so may speakers drone on incessantly and save their best message for the end? Maybe it really was profound but I am no longer with them.i think that this is one of our big problems with preachers. Do an actual twenty minute presentation and then sit down. If you cannot say it by then you are not an effective preacher. I think the idea of involving the audience is worth trying.
I loved this article! I’m a program coordinator and Worship planner at the church that I currently serve. A minister friend of mine from a neighbouring church have joined forces to provide a Worship Service that encourages participation as part of the message. It is a more informal style inviting participants to sit around tables in a cafe style. The music is led by guitar, bongo and vocals to provide a less formal atmosphere. Someone gives a sermon or message but everything is invited to discuss specific questions around their tables and to the whole group. We have found that people like to move from the planned “script” and we encourage that as we continue to evolve. We’ve only had 2 services so far but are having another in a couple weeks. We hope that this fresh new approach will reach a while new group of in our church communities.
Thank you, Thom. I’ve been saying exactly this for years. At our last church, when I suggested it to the leader, he said he felt it wouldn’t necessarily be helpful to give opportunity for questions, as it may lead to people questioning foundational truths or challenging orthodoxy. Perhaps he was betraying some fear of what I can only see as being healthy discussion.
I’ve preached in church on a few occasions and have invited questions, and it’s been a positive thing, with people asking very helpful questions.
I’ve found for years that most sermons go in one ear and out the other as a result of being preached at, and I’m left feeling sorry for the preacher who’s packed in so many hours of preparation, when an opportunity for discussion / engagement would leave us with a retained message to chew over and ‘bear fruit’ during the week. Jesus engaged with his listeners, as do most modern teaching methods, so why does church insist on perpetuating this practice?
In the university world, where I teach, a lot is being made of the so-called “inverted classroom” where students listen to lectures via podcast or watch a videocast and then the time together is used for discussion and going deeper, or working together on problem-sets. What’s discussed in this blog sounds like the church version. Note, however, that it only works if the participants do their homework and watch the videocast.
Interesting.
I wonder if this might be a commentary on the lackluster sermon presentations that some people are having to endure?
Personally, I can’t imagine being effected the same way in a small group discussion as I can be receiving anointed, insightful teaching. They both have their place but that are not both the same.
Considering my personality profile, if I attended a worship and teaching gathering and found myself in a small group discussion, it would be my last time to attend that gathering.
The first question a church would need to ask if considering this approach would be, “Whom do we structure our main gatherings for?” Christians, seekers, or both? This will determine how you structure your gathering.
(You don’t have to ask me twice for my opinion. :))
I can’t imagine being in a small group that is not sharing anointed, insightful teaching! Wisdom and teaching coming from well respected teachers and pastors and the ability for people to ask the tough questions and get the answers as the material is being presented is the closest thing to heaven on earth I can think of! Being in a group of committed pursuers of Christ all excited to take their teaching to the next level while being mentored by a good teacher of the Word is far more preferable to being one of 50, 500, or 5,000 who doesn’t even get the chance to ask “can you clear up that last point, please?”
Unless you are talking about a small group following the 7 week study of such and such. If a small group means following a quarterly or a dated Bible study that may or may not meet the immediate needs of your group, I understand what you are saying. If that is your understanding of a small group, then what you say makes perfect sense.
You said it correctly, though. The question is “Whom do we structure…” That’s the problem. Structure. How do we allow the Holy Spirit to have His say if we can not spontaneously respond to Him because we are trapped by the structure?
Thousands were added to their number daily and they met house to house sharing everything.
Is expository, prophetic, passionate preaching biblical? Why is that question not even on the radar? If it is, no one has any business doing away with it to suit the “needs” of our culture. For every Sunday morning worship service trying to keep people’s attention with “pair shares”, I can show you a preacher who preaches 30-45 minutes to growing crowds of disciples who are connecting with others outside of the Sunday morning service. Like Ron said, this is more of a commentary on lackluster preaching. Sure, call it a “lecture” and no one wants to sit through that on Sunday morning. Christ-exalting, Spirit-inspired expository exultation is both biblical and powerful to not only hold attention but to change lives.
Skaught commented on Facebook: “Let people sit in a circle to see each other. Let people share their gifts, even if they are just learning their gifts – we don’t need professionals. I went to a fellowship once that the kids who were learning to play an instrument would want to get up and play a song like “Amazing Grace” with the squeaks and squawks of learning to play the saxophone. We all supported them in their gifts. Some shared poems they had found or wrote, some would sing together a song to bless the group. But that lasted only a year or so, before we had to go to the traditional church format. A pastor and a professional sounding music group. Caught a glimpse of something better still!”
So True! How much better to have personal response & interaction. Our senior pastor is a great story teller & excellent communicator but that is So Rare! “Who do you say that I am?” “You are the Christ!” Seemed to work for that Teacher/Preacher! Admittedly there can be problems especially with “Ball hogs” or other clueless congregants but lecturers listen up…there are problems with your methods & your Leader has shown another way…FOLLOW your Leader!
I disagree. Sunday School or small groups is for dialogue. Also, most members and especially visitors and possibly non-believers, don’t know the Word. Today too many or not biblically literate. Even in small groups, many discussions degenerate to “what do think this means” and no concrete conclusions are reached with many leaving confused. The above suggestion is comparable to “cooperative learning” as instituted in public schools. By the way, it isn’t working. I know it isn’t, as a retired school teacher.
Too many people “think” that they know more than they really do. We need doctrinally and theologically sound teachers of the Word. People need to be willing to listen and learn. Many don’t want to be “told” anything anymore, especially about “sin” in their lives and that without Christ that they are going to “Hell”.
Sam, you are so right! This is did not work in the public schools. Every student needs a well trained teacher and a church needs a well trained minister to teach us. This kind of program resulted in chaos .Are the young going to teach the old, or the old going to teach the young? The church is not a social club! We go to worship, and learn from a minister, who knows more than we.
Excellent, Thom!
What is more trained than a person who has an anointing by God for the ministry. Is dedicated to his calling. Who studies to show himself approved to god (not man). Is allowed to make mistakes. Has a heart for the people of God, not his ministry.
Beats a degree from a theological college. I should know as I have one.
Sam, no one is advocating eliminating “theologically sound teachers of the Word.” People are simply wanting to ask questions and interact with the theologically sound teachings. They’re desiring an approach like Jesus demonstrated, which welcomed questions and interaction.
You mean like the teacher that told me that Lake St. Claire was one of the Great Lakes (this happened in ’71 – I was a 2nd grader). Not to be outdone, I told her that Lake Ontario (couldn’t pronounce it right but I could show it to you on a map or globe)…was the 5th Great Lake. After a trip to the office, a call to my parents, a threat of discipline because I questioned a teacher, I was exonerated because I was right (got an “N” in citizenship for not falling in line…sounds like church).
Is this what we want? As a pastor I always welcomed people to challenge and question what I say…because of that second grade experience.
“We need doctrinally and theologically sound teachers of the Word.” Keep mind there are over 5000 different sects of Christianity out there, each with their own doctrine. I am sure there would be some out there who would think your doctrine is not sound. Everyone thinks their doctrine is correct and that has become a huge part of the problem. Sticking to the simple Gospel message and living it does not work anymore, many caveats have to be added and they will always take precedent and cause divisions. Until this is corrected, your solution will only work with those who accept “your” doctrine.
Sounds like the Corinthian church. Paul did lecture, and part of the reason was that the New Testament was not yet written. He had information that nobody to whom he was speaking had. This is at least part of the reason there was so much “lecture” in the teaching portions of the New Testament. Anyone who candidly reads the Gospels will notice the astounding amount of interaction between Jesus and His disciples, despite the fact that Jesus was the Word incarnate, and very likely had much more to offer than you, me, or any other preacher or teacher since Him.
Actually, the word most frequently used to describe first-century preaching and teaching is “dialegomai” (Acts 17:2, 17; 18:4, 19; 19:8-9; 20:7, 9; 24:25, etc.). This word means a two-way form of communication. Our English word “dialogue” is derived from it. And, it is typical of the first century Hebraic pattern of teaching.
The idea of a sermon in the way it is practiced in most churches (30 minute lecture) was unknown in the NT. This type of monologue didn’t make its way into the church until probably the third century. See “Pagan Christianity” (chapter four) by Frank Viola for a detailed history of the sermon.
You’re not wrong. We Christians often start new denominations with the intent of “restoring the first century Church”, but we rarely progress back beyond the 20th century.
The earliest Christian was not stuck on monologue. Check out my New/Old Model for the Church. Paul’s second letter points out that their sharing in worship was a sharing of worship. (1 Cor. 14:26) Check out my proposal.
https://budtillinghast.wordpress.com/
[…] (9) According to a just published book (“Church Refugees: Sociologists reveal why people are DONE with church but not their faith, Packard and Hope June 2015) people are tired of the present model of monologue sermons. First, there were the Nones; here there are the Dones, people who are tired of a format where, with preachers and sermons, they are just talked to. They’re Done with preaching but not with faith. Perhaps it’s time to experiment with a new form of communicating which is also very old. See also Thom Schultz’s blog on this: http://holysoup.com/2015/06/09/done-with-sit-down-and-shut-up/ […]
Larry commented on Facebook: ” I haven’t read Josh’s book yet but I first became aware of “Dones” or “leavers” about 10 years ago shortly after resigning my institutional church pastorate. It was a huge step of faith; nothing to go to apart from a sense that God was leading me to start a new church community with an unconventional approach. Ultimately I did in July 2005…from scratch,,,no money, no people apart from my wife and teen son and daughter and no building; just our home. After reading Alan Jamieson’s “A Churchless Faith” and Dave Tomlinson’s “The Post Evangelical,” I concluded that I too was a leaver looking for more depth to my faith and ministry. As I recently started reading the “Dones” related articles it occurred to me that I guess I was among these “Dones” when I resigned as a small church pastor/worship leader musician in October 2004. Admittedly the approach I have taken is intentional and not second nature to my training. I’m no longer a talking head but more of a discussion facilitator. Our meetups are relational and engaging and my tiny group of about a dozen twenty-somethings (most have little to no church culture experience and some wouldn’t call themselves followers of Jesus) often express how they love being able to put their doubts and questions out there. They’re OK when I can’t always give an answer to all their questions. I’ve already been too long in my comment but I do wonder about the Dones. I get why they leave. We live in London, Ontario Canada; a pretty conservative and churched city of about 380,000. I am certain there are other Dones but I’ve never met any. I work a full-time job (and invest almost as much time into our tiny church community) and frankly I fly under the radar of the local institutional church culture. I’m wondering if in Josh’s research, does he explain in his book what specifically Dones are doing instead of belonging to the institutional church culture in a local context?”
Larry, yes, Josh does describe in Church Refugees how the Dones are living out and nurturing their faith outside of the established church. And we are soon releasing more research that details the Dones’ faith pursuits.
Thom, where is your Facebook page for this discussion?
John, you can find the Facebook thread here: https://www.facebook.com/whypeopledontgotochurch?fref=nf
Thom: Thanks for sharing how we do church at The Salvation Army Berry Street in Nashville. Here are 12 reasons for being unchurched (Done) and our Berry Street alternative: https://stevesimms.wordpress.com/2015/02/05/reasons-for-being-unchurched-the-berry-street-alternative/
I would love to see this work in a Catholic liturgy. Honestly there is already space for it in the responsory, a hold-over from the ancient liturgy, as you correctly referenced. I have been in smaller college Masses where the prayers of the people were opened up, and anyone could say what they wanted. I want to note three things: 1) democraticizing liturgy is an interesting experiment in social control; if authority is devoluted to the masses, it can do so for truth and the construction of it, a dangeous thing in schism-happy modern churches; 2) I would love to see Packard problematize the motives of the Dones; in my view, some (not all) suffer from pride, and want it done their way; 3) we have to hold in tension the idea that Sunday liturgy is about equipping the masses to go outside the 4 walls and do the work of the ministry out there; too many churches today want us to invite people to church thinking that’s where conversion and discipleship is “supposed” to happen, performed by the Pastor. We sit and listen because we need to learn, then apply what we learn out in the real world. Nevertheless, I would love to see a Sunday service open up in the way you described.
I know the church is not too willing to accept expertise from the world, but the fact is those who insist on the monologue method are wasting their time and effort. it is a known fact educationally that people do not remember beyond 20 minutes. If a preacher insists on a 45 minute sermon, they are actually saying I don’t want you to learn anything. The quality of the preaching is irrelevant, it is the time factor that is crucial.
I have heard many very good sermons that went longer than 20 minutes but I can’t tell you a thing about them and being autistic, I have the memory of an elephant.
In our church, we always end a short sharing time with practical application so everyone is involved. As a result I remember everything that is said, and done. As a result, my gift of prophecy and discernment is developing at rate of knots.
I agree completely that the traditional style of preaching must change. People are just not getting fed in church. That includes me. I just graduated from Liberty University Baptist Theological Seminary in May and feel strongly that we must ALL rue to God’s Word in the Bible and know His will for us, which is to continue in sanctification to become Christlike. Our church pastors must understand that it is not about them, it is about God. We absolutely must put God first in everything we do, which of course includes sharing the Word of God which has power when spoken. Letting church participants read, discuss and share is invaluable in understanding God’s Word. It also allows for correction of pastoral messages where necessary. Let’s continue to work together with the knowledge that God’s will must be our will.
I think this method is great and is the method that our congregation uses prior to the more traditional worship service. We call it “class”. While the kids are in their classes the adults meet in the auditorium and other classrooms and engage in discussion. Now attendance for class is not the same as the worship service but it is offered to all. The classes are lead by our pulpit minister, deacons, or elders and is similar to that of a college class where those in attendance are engaged in dialogue. Been doing it that way for the 32 years I have been alive anyway. My dad preached for 30 of those years. Best preacher I have ever known, wish I would have appreciated it when I was younger.
I like the idea of always being engaging with people I think we learn by asking questions. so I must ask other than knowing that Christians in the early church met in homes do we have any evidence that this was the structure?
I would also caution using such language as where the Spirit leads in reference only to the interactive groups, it can come across that you’re saying that the Spirit does not move and any other type of setting which of course would limit the power of the Spirit of God.
This is good method it’s not a new method it’s just not widely used but when it is used and someone poses a question and several opinions are given say for instance is Jesus God and once people have given their insights is this the only thing they walk away with or are they taken back to Scripture to get a definite answer based on the truth of Scripture?
Good question alsyo1. Here’s an example from The Salvation Army Berry Street in Nashville. We had a practicing Hindu from India start attending our meetings. He had been in the states for 35 years and had attended many traditional churches, so we assumed he was a Christian. However, after about 6 months he shared with us that while attending our participatory meetings he had become convinced that Christ was real because he could see Jesus in the people and in how and what they shared. He told us that he was reading the Bible every day. That was 5 years ago, and he continues to grow every stronger in Christ and to show much spiritual fruit in his life. Here’s his story: https://stevesimms.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/from-hinduism-to-jesus-christ/
—
I am there!! I don’t feel called to be a Pastor but I know after 68 years of life I still have more to give for God’ Glory and The Kingdom, Lord Willing. Christ’s whole ministry on this earth was about relationship, relationship, relationship. How He reacted to those that crossed His path, not with a sermon but with interaction. Yes it did include teaching but more so it was with the gifts of the spirit. People who are not in my life group need to hear that I still have struggles and blessings and that this life is a journey. Many of the circumstances of those individual journey’s are similar and it is the adversary who desires to make each one of us feel like we could not possibly be struggling with like situations of brothers and sisters. Satan loves quiet hearts afraid to live in the Light of day and instead spend most of the time in the darkness of the night, afraid to share because of the feared condemnation or judgement. If we have a chance to interact and share, in the greater story, with our individual stories it can totally bring Glory To God and it is of tremendous encouragement to those who are willing to share for the right reason. To build up and edify those around us for His Glory. We get little glimpses of this in the community of believers I am engaged with but I would like more, and I would like it before I get to Heaven. I am not open to just creating a free-for-all type atmosphere but I am for allowing The Holy Spirit to be able to intervene even a planned service. Praising and lifting the name of Jesus should not just happen on a Thanksgiving service, once a year, but it should be available every Sunday at some level. Dones don’t want to be done!!
This is very interesting… I kept seeking for a connection like this, but ultimately, I was unable to find it in Christianity and found it in Judaism.
I am in general agreement with the basic premise of this post, but have some reasons for pause. I want to clearly understand what is happening, the real reasons behind Doneness, and how God is leading His people in this matter. Here are a few items that come to mind…
1. The spiritual gift of teaching infers that we must give honour and attention to those who are so gifted and listen to them. I can listen to a truly gifted and biblically astute teacher for hours without tiring. This is not to say they cannot be even better teachers by better engaging with their listeners, but sometimes God has something to say through His especially gifted ones, and they need all the space and time necessary for that message to be delivered. Jesus wasn’t always interactive in His teaching. There were extensive discourses where He held the stage.
2. Limited attention spans are not simply a biological fact of life. While many seem to have attention spans limited to 20 minutes of preaching, they have no trouble at all letting their attention be held captive to hours and hours of continuous TV, sports, recreation and entertainment of all kinds. The decrease in attention spans – for certain things – is a very real malady of modern culture, exacerbated by more tactile, exciting and visual delivery of information (pointing out that what many people really crave is a compelling story). Yes, we can do better by broadening the methods of delivery of propositional truth, but the underlying – and worrying – issue is that concentration on and tolerance of propositional truth is being eclipsed by more worldly and enticing things.
3. Yes, we must discern between people who just want things their way, or who want a voice just to hear their own voice, and the very legitimate urge to *engage* with the telling of truth, to engage that truth through relationship and to seek sanctification in community with other truth-seekers. Often when I have a chance for spontaneous interaction with others, I am taken aback with their rudimentary knowledge of the scriptures (I’m talking about those who’ve spent many years in the church). I must limit my level of interaction with them because they are more comfortable with milk than meat. Then I realise they are often just the product of a church that has utterly failed to train them up in how to be good students of the Word, to learn a lifestyle of bible engagement that teaches them more deeply and lastingly than preaching ever could. A good preacher knows that his preaching ministry is the lesser of the means by which people must absorb the word of God.
There. That’s my three-point sermon done and dusted.
I would like to propose an experiment for some of you with a regular sermon ministry. It may not be practical in your situation, but it’s a worthy risk.
Fairly early in the preparation stage of an upcoming sermon, perhaps after the Holy Spirit has already impressed you with some preliminary structure or ideas, invite some in your congregation to a meeting to discuss the upcoming sermon. Briefly tell them your thoughts so far and invite them to reflect on the passage and topic together and offer their thoughts. Ask them for personal, real-world experiences, or nagging questions, or doubts, or insights that God may have already given some of them on the subject. At the very least, your sermon will better reflect more actual, felt needs.
Get them to personally invest in the sermon before it is even given and acknowledge, by name, some of their contributions to the development of the sermon when you give it. You can be assured that at least those people will be highly attentive to the sermon and get more lasting profit from it. A sermon doesn’t necessarily have to be interactive while it is delivered, but can be front-loaded with meaningful participation during its preparation. You will undoubtedly find more people clamoring to be part of this group if this idea works.
It’s a bit more akin to a sermon from the church to the church if you will. It gives the chance for the gifted teacher to deliver the message with the degree of insight and excellence his gifting allows, while including the spirit-led contribution in the message of other people gifted in similar or other ways. I think this is a way better approach than discussion of the sermon after it is done, where the scope of discussion is somewhat constrained to content of the one person who does all the preparation.
Very well said, thank you so much. I’m not ready to give up on the sermon simply because I think preaching is biblical. It seems to me this is the one fact that is being avoided in favor of “what works”. Not only did Jesus preach extended messages, the prophets did as well. I don’t think attention spans are the problem. I believe the ones called to hold attention are the problem.
I would also add that lots of people are talking about not remembering sermons. I don’t understand why this is such a big deal. I don’t remember what I read in my quiet time last Monday or what my wife made for supper that night. But I know that I was nourished during both of those times and I’m not about to give up on either. Whereas I believe a sermon should be well-structured and easy to grasp, I also believe that sermons are very much “in the moment” times for God to get our attention with truth at the level of our affections.
I may be wrong, but it seems to me that most of the people here are trying to come up with a method to make up for two things:
1. Uninspired and unprepared preachers.
2. Nonfunctioning systems for connecting people with one another for the sake of encouragement and discipleship.
I too think that “remembering” a sermon is not that important. Good preaching has an affect that may not be that visible or memorable to the listener. What is remembered is at a sort of cumulative, subconscious level. Consistent preaching has the effect of stocking and reinforcing one’s apologetic storehouse, where you become increasingly convinced of the veracity, logic and consistency of God’s word, how it holds together and how scripture speaks to and of scripture and gradually forms a macro view of God’s unchanging purposes.
Knowing and falling more in love with the scripture and its Author is the purpose of preaching even if the details of a particular sermon may be hard to remember. In any case, preaching is not an end in itself, but a beginning – a stimulus to get the hearers to examine the scriptures for themselves to see if these things are true.
[…] from monologue to dialogue… Read the rest of Thom’s blog […]
“What then shall we say, brothers and sisters? When you come together, each of you has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. Everything must be done so that the church may be built up.” 1 Corinthians 14:26
Excellent!
I can relate so much to this, I wish more Church leaders were secure enough to handle meetings this way.
The change in format being cited is, I believe, an organised form of the more organic approach to church meetings given in 1 Corinthians: Paul recommends two or three speakers should share their hearts – in such a way that each is responding to the inspiration of the previous speaker – leaving room also for less confident people to make their own responses – all this sharing comes from people ‘weighing’ what is said by others and responding in agreement, adding to what the others have said – Paul’s suggestions in 1 Cor 16 have often been assumed to be referring to ‘prophecy’ as a specific style or genre of speaking but it’s more about the power of the words as measured by its effect on the hearers – all public talks are meant to be ‘prophetic’ and the key to this is found in making sure that testimony forms the bulk of whaf is being taught or shared. The style of sharing shouldn’t be constrained by tradition – if can be a typed sermon but if can also be a first-person prophetic utterance, a song, an unlearned language (tongue) with interpretation – this way everyone feels they are part of the whole bringing of God’s word rather than being told that the monologue sermon being THE WORD and the other contributions being of questionable significance!
I’ve been giving Thom’s posts a lot of thought, and one thing that’s troubling to me is the fact that all of us–members, pastors, leaders, and writers, seem to have forgotten the fact that the mission of the body of Christ/Christians (distinguished from “church”) is evangelism and discipleship.
Could it be that all of us, including ministers, pastors and members are so self-absorbed that we’ve forgotten what we are really supposed to do?
Some of what I’m saying relates back to the idea of being “done” in the sense that all the current efforts of the churches seem to be to gain transfer growth through better and more exciting programs, and those programs take a huge toll on the people who do them. So people are “done” because they are overcontrolled. Because they don’t see the eternal benefit of the ministry they are doing. Because they don’t want to sit still and be told that “the minister does all the ministry.”
But could it really be that the root of our dissatisfaction lies in two areas?
1. We instinctively feel “incomplete” unless we see God working in the lives of lost people, and we are not satisfied with just seeing that work as spectators?
2. We don’t see the ministry transforming unbelievers into godly men and women (and kids), and that unconsciously affects our thinking.
Or…
Could it be that we are self-absorbed, and interested only in what “ministry brings to me,” rather than serving under appropriate leadership?
I don’t think the last item is really true, since many of the people discussed in “the dones’ are particularly self-sacrificing, so much so that they burn out, but almost all the discussion does center around “what I want,” so I feel it necessary to think about that.
Anyone else have any thoughts about all this?
I am still trying to derive new ways to evangelize.
I’ve got my blog and website: http://www.godlovespeople.org; I’ve in the past tried a distributed neighborhood newsletter combined with a neighborhood Bible study; ministry/witnessing at work (I spent about 10 years as a mortgage broker in a decidedly unfriendly spiritual climate); I’m currently thinking about how to do something really effective in these last years of ministry (I’m 70 this year);
Anyone actually DOING something new and effective??
Ideas?
A long time ago, I got tired of the “Show Business” of church. The P&W is the warm-up act for the headliner. It’s the same formula for rock concerts, lounge acts, and all those other entertainment type events. Today, I would go if there were a good choir that i could sing in. But, there are no churches around here that come close to what I believe with choirs anymore. It’s all P&W pit band type stuff. Gotta get em hep’ed up emotionally. It’s like the entertainer says: If I can make you laugh or if I can make you cry, you’ll put money in the tip jar. That’s what it’s all about now. Seems that way to me, anyway.
My husband and I are part of the dones. After pastoring for 10 years, a fellowship we helped start, we shut it down, literally. As part of a simple church, we are finding a walk with Christ that we needed so badly. Not only does the observer need to engage but the leadership does also. This journey has taken us into the lives of other pastors who are also done and are assured God has called them out, also.
[…] second thing that got me thinking about this is another article by Thom Shultz. Here’s the line that caught my […]
[…] Thom Schultz shared some ideas about church and engaging worship in writing “Done with ‘Sit Down and Shut Up.'” […]
Hi Thom,
I enjoyed this article and previous ones I’ve read about Church Refugees, however, I noticed that in this particular post post, all of your practical examples of what can be changed are only about tweaking the traditional church model.They still revolve around the big Sunday morning event, when that’s just part of what “church” is.
Revivalists of old could preach for hours and hours and nobody tired of it. One is famously quoted as saying “I merely set myself on fire, and others come to watch me burn.” The problem for most “dones”, is not hearing a sermon or a lecture. It’s the belief that hearing a sermon and singing songs alone constitutes discipleship or fellowship. It’s not, and a large majority of them aren’t given enough credit, but instead are blamed for their motives or accused of things like selfishness or forsaking the gathering together like you covered in your previous post about those done with Church but not with God.
Also, if a preacher is truly anointed, you don’t care how long they preach. I’ve sat under men who preached for nearly 3 hours, but it only felt like 20 minutes and I had to buy the tape and listen to it dozens of times because it was so rich it felt new each time I heard it. Conversely, I’ve sat under 20 minute sermons that felt like 3 hours and I never wanted to hear them again.
For too long we’ve made the pulpit/message, and the worship team or choir (depending on your denomination) the focus of the meetings. In the new covenant, Paul seemed to envision “when each of you gather, each one brings something” way of gathering, and frankly that just can’t happen in huge gathering lest they go on for days.
Anyway, I could go on, but I’m enjoying these posts. Thank you!
Blessings
Thanks, Steve. Yup, I realize that a couple of the examples in this article could be seen as tweaking the old model. In this particular slice of the Church Refugees research, I’m exploring the Dones’ aversion to “lecture-style preaching,” and suggesting some simple changes for traditional churches to become more effective.
That being said, you are touching on a bigger issue with the Dones. That is, church–the Body of Christ–is much, much more than any scripted gathering on Sunday morning. Josh Packard’s research makes this abundantly clear. And the new quantitative study on the Dones we’re about to release will give us all some compelling numbers to consider.
For some, tweaking can be a good start. But ultimately we need a Jesus-style revolution.
“For some, tweaking can be a good start. But ultimately we need a Jesus-style revolution.”
Agreed!
[…] this month Thom Schulz wrote a blog post suggesting that the time has arrived for a shift from the sermon as monologue to dialogue. In […]
The think pair share model of teaching is an old tried and true method that has been used in secular classrooms for years and for a generation that had grown up encouraged to use a multi-pronged approach to learning in school it should not surprise us that the desire for it is trickling into the pew.
I think that this does not do away entirely with the need for lecture, and somewhere the whole discussion about the difference between preaching and teaching needs to be had, but the methods you have touched upon are useful in helping us break the learning wall down with this generation.
I agree with a new/old method of teaching, but maybe the issue is twofold: in the first place, many people of faith simply disagree with positions the minister takes, and in particular positions that are not mandatory in the Scriptures. I have seen this more times than I can count, and it has a very strong effect on the congregation. In a lot of cases, sermons are preached that are “unhelpful,” and primarily harangues about one or another social position that often does not affect those in the congregation. Yes, ministers should address social issues, but they ought not to address them all the time, or address only them. People get information from many sources these days (Facebook apparently being one of the main ones), and it’s clear to me that folks form their own opinions without the leadership of the minister. Many of the churches I’ve attended have had as their main banner “America First;” or “America is a Christian Nation.” (Notably forgetting Canada and central and south America, you’ll notice). This gets pretty tiresome after decades of unpopular wars, and information about them and our government that surfaces all the time. So the first point I’m making (finally), is that messages ought to be considered carefully as to their impact on the congregation in front of us, and we need to assume that our facts will be checked, and in some cases disbelieved.
Second, I am not so sure that form is really the issue as much as “having a voice.” Like the auto industry, we are all facing a group of people who have a good deal of knowledge concerning the world we live in, and when we speak, we need to invite opinions contrary to ours, and disagreements.
It’s not an easy task for a minister, since he’s taught (if in my tradition) that Scripture rules. However, that often deteriorates into, “My opinion of Scripture rules…” and that just doesn’t work any longer.
In addition, I think that lots of church ministries are simply there to aggrandize the organization or the minister (if the church is big enough)–some ministers are “stars,” and just going to “their church” makes you special.
This really is not the ideal. I think it might be beneficial for us all to look back to the roots of the Pentecostal movement (beginning in L. A.), and to see what their forms might have to offer us. They were amazingly like folks are describing here, and that organization just seemed to “happen.” Unfortunately, that movement soon began to follow the formula that’s been around forever–“top down” rule and ministry. Gotta have leaders, ya know…
I’ve thought a lot about this over the years, and it seems almost as if we’re doomed to repeat the mistakes of the past–minister as leader, minister as king, minister as a god…(or the closest thing you’ll see this side of heaven).
It’s like we’re always choosing to have Saul as our king all over again.
Wow there’s a lot buried there in that response! I believe in Pastoral leadership and I also believe that it is misused a lot. I believe in Congregational input and I also believe it is misused a lot. I suppose that has more to do with the people using it thatn with the tools themselves but there ya’ go.
Sorry for the long response, too, Joseph. I have thought about these things for decades. I’m older now, so I have both the benefit and the curse of experience. We all want the same thing, of course. Ministry that matters to the people we serve, whoever they are.
Yes indeed. I desire to see ministry that transforms people in time for eternity. I am becoming more and more convinced that that can only happen when churches stop trying to build their own city states and link arms with one another to bring light to their communities no matter where the people of the community choose to go to church.
Good information, that’s the kind of church i’m looking for.
Hmmm, sounds familiar to this public high school teacher.
[…] disenchanted with church, leaving church and why it is failing to connect with people anymore. Then this All of which are far more symptomatic of a far deeper issue. What we really need to talk about is […]
My church has the normal fairly traditional Sunday service, but there alternatives alongside that.
1st and 3rd Sunday there is also a group called “Taste” going on in another part of the church building. This is aimed largely at families – it kind of grew out of Messy Church – but is open to everyone who wants to join in. People sit at tables, and can get up and get themselves something to drink, and make a piece of toast if they want to. A lot of the service content included discussion of the day’s theme, with activities for children of all ages, and for adults. On Taste Sundays, the Sunday School, which we call Young Church, are part of the Taste session.
On 2nd and 4th Sundays we have Reflect – the people going in to Reflect leave the main service about 15 mins in, when Sunday School leave. They go into a another room and sit round a table with a nice cup of tea/coffee, and discuss the theme of the service, with a leader who has liaised with the preacher. It is often much deeper in content, because of the people who mostly take part.
It works well. And it caters for peoples different learning styles, and is also more accessible than the traditional service for people who have health issues, or are deaf, blind, etc.
Fascinating that this topic is still receiving comments. I think Thom is doing a marvelous service in calling out these issues, and I’m very grateful. I’ve been working on expanding my own ministry (writing, online teaching), with an eye to helping those of us who aren’t yet “in the faith;” I’m delighted to see that your church is doing for you what you need…
Sounds great.
I suspect many of the ‘Dones’ would still not go to church. Many people (as in Jesus’ day) are so opinionated that they don’t want to be led – a problem with post modernism. They wouldn’t get on with the real Jesus if the Bible.
I hope that’s not true, but expect you’re right. We’ve entered an era of almost toxic individualism, in which “I’m all that matters.” This is a huge problem for our future, but it was predictable, given the “me generation,” etc.
However, I have some hope that the current trend will reverse itself as people find they need their fellow Christians and seek out reasonable ministries that aim at real help, not just empire building.
The problem, as with so many of the 20th century institutions, is funding. It’s almost impossible for a small church to exist with the current structures, assuming that the church wants an educated leadership, or intends to pay them.
This leads to the desire to build ever-larger churches, because of the “critical mass” required to buy property or pay rent, employ staff, etc. It’s a problem that won’t go away soon. I got my education from a brick and mortar Seminary. By the time I was done, I had the equivalent of either a Law degree (J. D.) plus postgraduate work, or an M. D. plus a board certification in a specific discipline–in other words, I had a Th.M. for which I paid dearly in both energy and money.
Once I entered the ministry, I realized that I could only earn about 10% of what an attorney or physician could. This is not a complaint, but it’s a reality, unless the new model is celibate pastors for protestantism. No minister can support his family on what I made, so I developed a second career.
However, it’s still true that the best ministry is the smaller church, with an educated minister who has time for his people.
This creates a very difficult tension.
I think that the answer may be more sacrifice for both the congregation and the minister, but that’s never easy. It’s pretty easy for the members of the congregation to say, “You should get a job…” when in fact the pastor HAS a job–them. This has been a problem ever since the beginning of the church, and it’s not an easy matter to resolve.
Thank God, thought I was in my own and felt like an outcast for wanting just this style of church. Praying that it takes off in the UK.
I actually prefer that lecture style of sermon, and find the start/stop of interjecting questions in the midst of the topic cumbersome and awkward (especially for those who are more introverted). However, I also desire the ability to have conversation about the message once I have all the information. I recently read of a church that instead of rushing people out the door when service ended, provided a post service discussion group over lunch. I would absolutely love a format like this.
I don’t think people are as biblically illiterate as one might think. It’s my experience that there is a huge wave of biblically illiterate folks, I think people don’t do enough study on their own time.
And I’m not sure what their greif is about passive listening they do this during TED Talks or lectures they attend.
I’m not against interaction but depending on the size of a congregation this could become a problem.
And the small group or discipleship offerings have been built to accommodate people and their questions.
The church I Pastor is small about 50 and I do allow for open dialogue but there’s times I have to reel it back in because as you know with any type of open discourse like this things can go off on a tangent.
[…] his latest blog post, Done with “Sit Down and Shut Up“, Thom Schultz addresses this. Incidentally, it was a post of Schultz’s I recently re-blogged […]