Jump directly to the Content
Jump directly to the Content

Skill Builders

Home > Skill Builders

Article

Dialogical Preaching (part 2)

Letting the audience have a say in the sermon

This is part two of a three-part series. In part one, Bob Hyatt offered a cultural and historical apologetic for dialogue in preaching. In part two, he addresses some of the concerns people have with dialogical preaching.

PreachingToday.com: Some would contend that introducing dialogue into the sermon could create a subjective atmosphere—one that fosters "truth by democracy," little concern for historical or grammatical issues, or an elevation of a more postmodern ethos. Are these concerns valid?

Bob Hyatt: I would say the concerns are valid but probably overstated. We should always be concerned about teaching correctly, whether in a small group or in a large worship gathering. We must always strive for the elevation of truth. But before I get to issues of avoiding a more subjective atmosphere, let me ask this question: Isn't it possible that truth can come from more than one voice? If I've effectively taught the Word of God to my community for 5–10 years, surely somebody has learned something. Does anyone besides me have something to say on whatever subject or passage we might be discussing that morning? I'm not arguing for the audience to offer 30 minutes worth of material, but might they have 30 seconds of insight? Might they have a good illustration from their lives? Might they be able to answer an open-ended question about how a particular principle from God's Word applies to their lives? I would hope so!

From a biblical standpoint, I know I cannot be the only one in that community who has the gift of teaching. I might be the one who's been assigned primarily as an elder to bring the Word of God on a regular basis, but if I want to give other people a chance to speak so that everyone can learn and be encouraged, I need to be intentional about it. I need to allow others who have the gift of teaching to exercise that gift, even if they haven't yet sharpened it to the extent that I have.

Now, in order to avoid a more subjective atmosphere, the person who's leading the discussion has to be just as prepared as a preacher who operates in the traditional homiletic. Even though I do dialogical preaching, I still write a manuscript of my sermon. I know exactly what I'm going to say during the worship gathering, but I've also chosen certain places to ask open-ended questions. I'm still going to share the things I feel God is saying to our community through the passage, but I also want to involve other people.

Other communities that practice dialogical preaching may do it differently, but I certainly would not want to fly by the seat of my pants, having us all come together, open up the Bible, and see what comes out. If no one has spent time in prayer and preparation, that's not good stewardship of the teaching gifts of the church.

On a more serious level, some even worry about the possibility of introducing heresy into the church by way of dialogical preaching.

The concern over heresy is certainly a serious issue. Erwin McManus says there are two things that are present in every healthy church: sexual immorality and heresy. If a church is truly alive and active, people who don't yet know Jesus will be present. In other words, in any healthy church—whatever the method of preaching—you're susceptible to wrong teaching or heresy. Whether we're doing a monologue or preaching dialogically, we must constantly judge ourselves and our communities by the Word of God. If you're committed to submitting to the authority of the Word of God, to the Holy Spirit being the teacher, to Jesus being the pastor of the church, and to the development of a great group of elders, you can do dialogical preaching in a manner that is honorable to God.

I'm not arguing for the audience to offer 30 minutes worth of material, but might they have 30 seconds of insight?

I'm amazed that in our community, the people that talk the most are the people who are the newest. Occasionally they will say some pretty freaky things! But I love to watch the whole community respond—myself included. As I look around the room where we gather for worship, I see the shifts in body language until somebody eventually says, "You know, I hear what you're saying, but I don't quite think that really catches the essence of what Scripture is saying." More extreme moments like these have only occurred 10–20 times in our history, but what is beautiful is when people get correction from somebody who's sitting next to them, rather than someone who's standing in front of them.

When people have disagreed with me in the teaching, I prefer that they say it to my face. I like to know when I've said something that is hitting people wrongly or when I've said something that's confusing. It's instant feedback. Preachers generally have to wait for questions until after they've delivered the message. I get it right away. Somebody says, "Wait a second. I don't know about that … " and I have a chance to interact about their concerns right on the spot.

With these concerns in mind, how would you then define the role of the preacher in dialogical preaching?

There's still a need for what people consider proclamation. I tend to think of my sermons in three parts: the first part consists of a number of open-ended questions to get the ball rolling; the second part has me talking a little less and the people a little more; the third part is where I "get on my horse and go." In that final part of the sermon, I tend to ignore any hands that are being raised, because I know that this is where my study, my prayer, and all my preparation come to a head. It's the part of the sermon where I say what it is that I feel God is saying to our community through this text.

There's still a critical role for the preacher and proclamation as we've known it; I just want the whole community to be involved in that proclamation by speaking to one another, giving good examples of things, answering questions, and even bringing up points that I didn't think of in my time in the Word.

Most counseling theories agree that if you hand somebody the answer, it usually means little to them. As they share their problems with you, you may know fairly quickly what it is that they need to do to get out of the hole they're in. But if you allow them to process the information, asking them the right questions along the way, they will often come to a conclusion on their own—maybe even the same conclusion you would have handed them. True change happens in that moment. That's the kind of change that I'm aiming for in dialogical preaching. I want people to come to the conclusion that I'm about to tell them anyway. Through good questions and an ongoing time of discussion, I want to lead them through the text in such a way that they are intuiting what I'm going to say right when I say it. When that happens, it's like there are little light bulbs going on all over the room. That's the sweet spot of dialogical preaching: when we're all moving together in such a way that people know exactly what I'm going to say—and then I say it.

This is part two of a three-part series. In part three Hyatt paints a picture of what a dialogical approach to the sermon event looks like at The Evergreen Community and offers a few ideas for any who would like to introduce dialogue into their preaching.

Bob Hyatt is a pastor at Evergreen Community in Portland, OR. He also serves as a church planting coach and the Director for Equipping and Spiritual Formation for the Ecclesia Network. To find out more about Bob or to connect with him, check out bobhyatt.me.

Related articles

Dialogical Preaching (part 1)

Letting the audience have a say in the sermon

Dialogical Preaching (part 3)

Letting the audience have a say in the sermon

Hurdling Barriers to Spiritual Formation (part 1)

Two pastors tell how emphasizing spiritual formation transformed their preaching.