RE: Sitting at the Grown Up Table
I used to be very anti-large and felt that true community growth could NOT be achieved in large churches. I still think very much this is true in many large churches. But I realized as part of a small upstart church, community is just as difficult to build in any size church depending on how it is envisioned and implemented.
John De Marco over at AC180 spoke about Doug Pagitt’s book Preaching Re-Imagined, The Role of the Sermon in Communities of Faith. … Read the post and comments before continuing…
I personally would love to be a part in a church/community described by Pagitt and I know they exist (few and far between). And I’ll go ahead and throw in the disclaimer that I haven’t read the book, this is just based on the post read at AC180.
But i think the important thing that is often overlooked is God’s sovereignty at work in all different types of churches. This is the main piece of this that irks me a bit because it is by it’s very nature hypocritical and illogical:
It’s main premise is that the popular way of delivering sermons (one man giving a generic speach to a large audience) is ineffectual at bringing about spiritual formation. True spiritual formation will come when all people get to be a part of the conversation, when spiritual talks are a two-way street.
So, Mr. Pagitt, is it alright if i give you a buzz and we sit down and have a two-way conversation about this book? And can we really argue this point when many many many of us get spiritually fed every single day by listening to podcasts that leave zero room for 2-way conversation? Podcasts put out by the same people that happen to lead these large churches (i.e. - Chandler, A. Stanley, Keller, Bell, Driscoll, etc (okay, less Driscoll lately, but still))
There is no doubt that as Iron Sharpens Iron, so man sharpens the soul of man. This can and sometimes is achieved by small groups, but in my experience creating these type of relationships and conversations have very little to do with the type of church or type of preaching or quality of the small groups; rather built on the desire, humility and initiative by each of us individually to develop friendships that sharpen us.
The friends that sharpen me the most don’t go to my church, and while I love the guys in my small group, only 2 of the members have I began developing a relationship that i would consider a deep and sharpening relationship.
Please, bring on the churches who can develop this sort of two-way street! I’d love to be a part! But don’t tell me that none of the others are effective.
Popularity: 6% [?]
Category : 
Can I push back here a little? Please please?? Let me ask you what makes the “some of these traditional places can and have been effective, too” churches effective?
It’s not small groups per se, and it’s not the preaching as talking-head-from-platform. Maybe it’s “effective” for those who engage the sermon (or the podcast or the book) in a way that at least mentally you’re going back and forth with the material. There might not be a real conversation, but you’re taking it in, chewing it up, pushing it back, getting something back, etc. There’s a give-and-take in the individual that wants to do that.
But where it’s ineffective is in letting those who want to sit to just sit. They listen without ears that want to hear, perhaps, and leave with nothing changed. Just a thought - they think they’re changed, or at least better off for coming and sitting, but there’s no real transformation other than they leave maybe a little more deluded and diluted than before.
Then it’s more about your hunger as an individual and as a group maybe, than about the church’s mode of operation. Back to Doug’s book, if the mode changes to make the effective part more likely, is that a good thing? In a real give-and-take, rather than the virtual kind that happens in most churches here, does it make it more likely that you as an individual will be challenged and transformed on some level? Will the best stuff rise to the top? Will consensus be enough motivation to actually do and not just be a hearer?
I love pushing back, don’t you?
My underlying point agrees with your blatant point:
“it’s more about your hunger as an individual and as a group maybe, than about the church’s mode of operation.”
My issue is not with Doug’s choice of modes. I embrace the mode and hope it becomes the rule rather than the exception. It just irks me a bit when we dismiss all other “modes” as ineffective.
First of all, you are not “a long-winded bore”.
Secondly, you have a valid point that Doug shouldn’t discredit every other method.
Finally, I’m glad you aren’t letting that keep you from seeing the good stuff he has to say.