Dr. Oss suggested a question concerning one idea narrative style preaching verses the traditional analytical approach.
Which method of preaching do you think would work better with seekers and/or skeptics, and why?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
25 comments:
Not exactly sure but I would have to say that the analytical approach would be better for seekers/skeptics. The reason I think it would be more effective is because the preaching would engage the hearer on a logical, and even cerebral level that would have the listener searching for answers and inwardly asking questions to either dismiss the claims you are making or confront the possibility of truth.
But I do like narrative better...I think everyone likes a good story, and could it be that the style of preaching be both?
I just talked to Brian, but I tend to lean in the opposite direction.
I think in our postmodern world, a seeker/skeptic is not as interested in a logical analytical discourse of anything, since what is true for you might not be true for them.
From a seeker/skeptic viewpoint, I would say a big idea/narrative would be more appealing. Draw me in, keep my attention, and make a solid point out of what you are saying. Appeal to my heart!
I think the traditional/analytical approach is great for those of us who might value the viewpoint that truth is not relative. A sound exegetical approach might be more up our alley.
I really enjoy hearing both to be honest.
But if you put me behind the pulpit, I actually enjoy preaching big idea/narrative the most!!
Well, I would have to say both are effective to both audiences... My thinking is that if a sermon is really anointed by the Holy Spirit, it will reach every audience. ;)
IMO, the traditional approach involving several points without much cohesion is outdated and largely ineffective in reaching most audiences, particularly "postmodern" people. Instead, preaching that emphasizes a single point of life-change has more potential to make an impact. Moreover, a narrative style, using biblical and contemporary story to drive home a single idea bears more semblance to the way in which postmoderns connect in everyday life. We value story; we want messages laden with personal touches.
Particularly a cynical or skeptical non-believer (and who can blame their posture considering the witness of many Xians?) would likely respond better to a sermon that sounds less like a traditional sermon and more like a heartfelt, sincere story in touch with the human experience but also revealing the divine.
It is difficult to say which would be better. While narrative sermons may do a better job reaching postmodern seekers as they are described in textbooks, most people I know are not simply postmodern. They are a synthesis of several things.
That having been said, I agree that a narrative style may be more effective for reaching seekers. The reason I think this is that often narrative can be used in a more inductive manner to help hearers to draw conclusions and make discoveries from the text for themselves before the preacher ever gets around to making the point him/herself. This should help to solidify the message in the hearers mind as well as not making anyone feel like you are jumping through philosophical hoops to convince them of your faith.
Research on postmodernity tends to indicate that people are more and more likely to respond better to the narrative sermon that draws them willingly along rather than the didactic sermon that gives them a number of points to believe.
That said, I prefer the analytical sermon. I like a good exegetical sermon that gets into the text and brings out what it says. Come to think on it, the narrative sermon may do this just as well. I guess I just like teaching better than preaching.
Hmm...with the limited amount of preaching experience I possess, I must say that my blog will be lets just say something generic. I readily relate to the Analytical side of the sermon direction bc thats just how i think--i never just see the broad strokes or big picture of something. Naturally then, I espouse to the Analytical method of interpreting Narrative. I know that when more details are given and more intentional focus is reflected to the audience that naturally some hearers will zone out bc thats not the way they think. Typically, everyone loves a good story--a central point painted and developed in slow, broad strokes, that build around one central point which inevitably becomes the ah-ha moment. Preaching with an Analytical style naturally gives me confidence with my approach and how i see my sermon taking shape; but, in light of where I am going to active duty military chaplaincy, I feel that i do need to hone the skill of telling a story--pointing out one big ides, for the hearers to leave wtih in the short amount of time i will have. Basically, I feel the Analytical approach will naturally feel like my right hand and the Big Idea will seem like an ackward left hand, but either way I believe that its not so much about how you present as it is the clarity of what you have to communicate. Though most people leave away with the big idea through their own presumptions and reflections, the Analytical approach can be just as effective provided that clarity is kept in front of the importance of what you have to say.
I think the narrative approach appeals on a number of levels. Truth for our generation is less about what you know and more about what you feel. And through narrative preaching I can make my audience feel pain, love, anger, jealousy, joy, etc. Along the same line, truth has more to do with my truth than universal truth (according to culture). So if i can communicate my story, or the story of others, truth becomes more real to the audience. This is not to say that we in any way hide biblical truth, but that we express it in a very personal way. This is the strength of our testimony. It baffles me that in today's church culture, we no longer allow for an opportunity for people to testify, as we called it growing up in the south. People are not given a chance to share their stories and how real and personal God has been to them. At least through a narrative preaching approach, actual life stories can be a natural aspect of your communication.
As a missionary I feel sometimes that depends on your audience. Who are you reaching with your message and how do they understand what you are trying to explain as one big idea.
Rev. Fred
I believe that it is really two different answers because its two different questions, as I see it. That which would work best with seekers is not necessarily the same that would work with skeptics. Seekers, as the label almost implies, could be open and even searching for meaningful truth. Skeptics on the other hand, may have adversarial positions or may simply view Christianity as a meaningless, powerless folk-religion.
If it is determined that your audience consists of those seeking truth in the midst of pluralistic letdowns, then a narrative approach might really deliver. If one could present the biblical 'big idea' in a way that is woven into a story or image that really resonates with the pervasive culture, then the listener might be moved to relate truth to their own condition. Then seeing the relevance, they would hopefully embrace it and apply it.
On the other hand, skeptics may possibly be seeking relevance, but are more likely to be outright dismissive of the gospel. A skeptic might simply view the message as lacking a truthful or realistic view of life, meaning and purpose. Here is where I believe the "explain it, prove it, apply it" thrust of the traditional analytical approach could be more effective.
You have to ask yourself, who am I preaching to? Who is in my audience? If the church is reaching out the the community in a sincere way then you should hopefully have BOTH seekers and skeptics! For this reason, varying the approach is preferable, in my opinion. If they are seeking, show them relevance. If they are truly skeptical, you have to wonder why they are in your audience. There must be some sense of searching within them. Ultimately, its the Holy Spirit that draws them. Our role is to present Truth and make sure style and method serve as enablers rather that getting in the way. Be open to keeping it varied, I say!
I keep thinking the inductive method is pretty good - but my variation of the inductive method is simply to save the central idea for the end - sort of leading up to with various points - then at the end everyone say s "Oh I see now what is going on!" But that is a different approach than the typical inductive approach.
as an aside, I also don't thin the "one idea" needs to be repeated 50 times in the course of the sermon.
A couple times should be sufficient.
Although I have one method of preaching that is easiest for me to use, I think that both can be highly effective. Maybe we could find a way to present the same passage with both methods. Sure this would require more work, but let's say you have two services on a Sunday morning. Preach the same sermon one way for the first and the other for the second.
The same point, the same text, is being utilized, but the method is different. You may even be able to mention that to your congregation. Tell them you're using one style in one service and another in the next.
We've all pretty much said that different people receive messages different ways, so why not try to do something about it through our preaching? If you really think that the method will help or hinder a person from grasping truth, then why not try to use both? Like I said, I know this isn't easy to do, but maybe it would work.
I think it depends on the genre. If you are preaching a narrative, say from the Old Testament historical books, narrative would work well. However, if you are preaching a more didactic text, say from one of Paul's letters, a more analytical approach would work better
We have been using both methods, and have found that both are desperately needed!
Two things have happened - with the analytical method the Word has been rightly divided and cuts deep to expose faulty belief systems. On 2 separate occasions, 2 people chose to leave because of this. They could not yet believe that Jesus was God and that He is the only way. Yet it opened both of them up for Jesus to bring healing and become their foundation.
So as we changed our format, and used more of a Big Idea style in the mornings, one woman returned and it was almost as if we were applying salve to her wounds. Without using the analytical, traditional exegetical approach, we would not have known this person did not believe in Christ. Yet without the second, she might not have received the healing she needed.
Praise the Lord that it is truly His Word that goes forth without void, and it is He who brings about salvation! We just have to rightly divide the Word, preach it, and give people an opportunity to receive Christ.
I would have to say using the famous “Allegory”. It allows me the freedom to see things others don’t normally see in Scripture, like “Davey Jones!” – Ha. On the serious note, I really enjoy how expository preaching lays out the Scripture and allows the person to be who they are during the their Bible Talk. This approach really digs deep into the Scripture and if used correctly will not leave and stone unturned.
I honestly don't think this one is an either...or. I think it is a both...and.
It depends on the audience. There are going to be seekers who are analytical and there are seekers who just need a big idea. I also think the text should help guide you in your approach also.
I prefer big idea narratives style preaching for Sunday morning service. I believe every Sunday morning service should give seekers opportunities to accept Jesus Christ as a personal savior.
I also believe Christian congregations need spiritual nourishment every week.
Therefore, preachers need to prepare relevant sermons for both seekers and church members. Church visitors would enjoy Bible stories which reflect and relate to their current concerns. People have "my story" in this post modern world. Church visitors and new believers may compare and apply preachers’ sermon with their stories. They may finally find Jesus Christ.
Some preachers are good at communicating better to new comers even by traditional analytical style preaching. I think traditional analytical method of preaching is adequate for Bible study or prayer meeting for Christian audience. Traditional analytical sermons often require Biblical knowledge to the audience.
This discussion presupposes that people actually find enough value in church to attend and hear a sermon, regardless of whether that sermon is seeker-sensitive, analytical, narrative, etc.
We are not just in a postmodern world in which Christianity is essentially equal with other religions. We are in a post-Christian world that ascribes very little value to anything spiritual.
For me, the question is not about how to communicate effectively with an audience. The question is how to have an audience in the first place.
The outside world is not asking, "What does Christianity do/mean for me?" Rather, it is, "Why should I even care about Christianity?"
In my opinion, we Christians need to better formulate the relevance of Christianity before we try to figure out who responds better to which kind of sermon.
Thoughts?
I think that we have forgotten a very imporptant factor. Is God able to speak to a generation that doesn't want to listen? If our answer to that is "no," than what are we doing here. If we value the power of an all-powerful, transcendant God, than how can we doubt His power to speak to a post-modern, post-Christian audience. As long as there are people on the earth, there will be people who want truth in their lives. People today do want spirituality, they just want it to be a tangible spirituality. They want to be able to touch it and know that it is real. So give them something real. To me God's word is real and relevant, and if it is not we need to stay home and watch ESPN.
...or Cartoon Network, Pastor Mark. ~lol.
I've gotten into the practice of using personal testimonies (picking ones that naturally fit into the flow of an already-happening conversation). I believe that if I am truly aware of how good God has been to me through every season of chance, every heart ache, and every victory, my heart - and thus my mouth - will overflow with thanksgiving. I can't "help" it if that overflow splashes onto a nonChristian "accidentally". When a Jesus loving person is humbly confident and consistently full of joy and hope, others are drawn in curious about the source and potential weaknesses of this person's seemingly solid emotional foundation.
Telling personal examples of God's goodness is not as easily slammed from a nonChristian point of view as debating the philosophies that surround religion.
For example if I say, "God has blessed me this week! He granted me favor and wisdom at work and I got a raise. My prayer time lately has been so sweet; I sense Him teaching me through it," what's a nonChristian going to say against it? "No He hasn't." I don't think so. There's power in the sincere telling of a God written story.
I think that many times, we let ourselves become distracted trying to prove what we believe about God and we forget that it is His job! Don't get sucked in to a mental competition geared toward trying to explain the unfathomable. There are brilliant minds and skilled debators that deny God's existence. But we don't have to be limited to that arena.
The last time I felt the "walls" go up as I tried to witness to someone, instead of trying to convince them of my beliefs' validity, I changed gears and shared my heart.
"I'm only here because God has been so faithful to me! Last year, everything I had hoped for was completely ruined. I was devastated and angry that God would put me through so much when I had done my best to honor Him! My dreams were brutally broken, and there were no decent options. So, I quit trying; I couldn't handle life anymore. I cried and yelled at my God and told Him how unfair He was to leave me hanging like that! He comforted me and suddenly opened an opportunity that I couldn't see. He was gentle with me and blessed me far beyond what I had wanted! And had I not been through that nightmare, and past my breaking point, I would have no idea how desperate others feel when their lives fall apart. My relationship with Jesus is the ONLY reason I am alive still, no addictions, no regrets. And He is the source of this awesome renewed joy that I have!"
In my little opinion, a human history book full of real, first-hand God-encounters is an amazing tool for advancing the Kingdom. I think God agrees because, "The Word became flesh..."
Not everyone's minds will agree, but our hearts all need the same Love. Instead of analyzing the God-shaped hole, I like to put something in it.
correction: "season of change"
sorry!
I thought of something to add. Y'all are gonna get sick of me ~ sorry. :)
One thing that offers supernatural proof is miraculous healing.
Inspecting the x-rays, a doctor is ready to schedule surgery to remove a small tumor that has been causing you crippling pain for months, but your Christian friends are praying with you. A few days later, an MRI procedure that was supposed to help with the pre-surgery planning reveals that the mass has completely vanished. The pain is gone, too. The specialist can't explain it, "All I know," he says, "is that the mass was there, and now it's not."
That's my true story. I love sharing it and asking the nonChristians how it could be anything BUT God.
I think the question may insinuate that one has to choose between the two...
I think we need to balance the tension between the two.
Since people are extremely complicated and nobody exists who is completely modern or postmodern...ie - they wouldn't be listening to your "words" anyway...
I rarely meet seekers who are completely one or the other...i use both in my preaching.
Sometimes narrative is a better approach...sometimes analytical.
Yeah, I think the one point thing is good, because it's kind of hard to remember a lot of things in one thirty minute span, but if preachers drive home one idea throughout, it will be easier for people to grasp that one idea.
I would have to agree with gregg, it might really but two question. However, I believe that preaching a narrative style would be more effective in getting their attention and then one could enter dialogue with the seeker/skeptics and answers questions toward the faith. Another point i agree with the power of the Holy Spirit is so important when preaching and dialoguing with either seeker/ skeptic because you can give every reason to be Christian and substantial evidence for the faith but some people will stubbornly hold on to their bias. It not only an issue of the mind and ear but also of the will.
Post a Comment