What’s the matter with preaching?

It was a well-crafted sermon, exhibiting careful exegesis of the biblical text together with relevant application to our lives as God’s people. It was also well delivered by a skilled and gifted communicator with years of pulpit experience.

But after the benediction as the people dispersed to their homes, I overheard a young man asking his parents a pertinent question: “Why do we put up with these monologue sermons every Sunday? Why do we listen to these one-way communications, which give us no opportunity to interact with the preacher? Why do we keep on doing it this way? Isn’t there a better way?”

New ways of being church are appearing all around us. Christians of all traditions are asking tough questions about the shape and focus of the church. Many are thinking deeply about our cultural context and starting with the question of mission: What kind of church can incarnate the gospel in our new and emerging cultural context? Ancient creedal answers and in-house denominational statements appear to be inadequate guides. Many are asking rudimentary questions like, “What’s non-negotiable and what might be done differently?”

Preaching is one facet of church life that’s being called into question. So what’s the matter with preaching?

At one level, nothing is wrong with preaching. It’s the way our faith gets passed from one generation to the next. Christ mandates it and Paul reminds us that “faith comes by hearing” the good news of God’s love for the world (Romans 10:17). Moreover, preaching reminds us of our identity as God’s people.

But at another level, the young man’s question has the ring of truth to it. Why do we assume that a sermon in the form of a monologue, which affords no opportunity for dialogue, is the best way to birth new Christians and equip believers for God’s work in the world? The deeper issue today is not whether we preach expository sermons or narrative sermons, but why we persist with mere monologues.

Origins

Sermons in the form of monologues became dominant in Christendom in the 4th century when churches left the home context and became big institutions. Many clerics adopted a rhetorical model more concerned about demonstrating a preacher’s knowledge and skill than measuring the impact of the message on listeners.

At the time, thousands of nominal Christians were joining the church. Monologue preaching by those with oratory skills and loud voices seemed to be the only realistic option when God’s people gathered in large basilicas and had little understanding of even the basics of faith.

Now that the church was part of the establishment, sermons by accredited preachers precluded unauthorized contributions that might rock the boat. Finally, in this more institutional and hierarchical setting, clergy preached and laity merely listened.

Monologue sermons still play a central role in most Christian traditions.

Pastors give several reasons for continuing to preach monologue sermons, arguing that such preaching has had a long and honourable history. They say these sermons allow spiritual encounters with God. Other preachers admit they’re simply afraid of straying from a well-known format into the insecurity of practices for which neither they nor the congregation are well trained.

Critiques

But the drawbacks of the monologue sermon are widely recognized by pew and pulpit alike. For example:

• Conscientious church leaders devote huge proportions of their working week to sermon preparation, deflecting them from other equally important activities.
• The success of the monologue sermon depends on exceptionally gifted communicators who are few and far between – most preachers are mediocre, at best.
• As a mode of theological instruction, monologue sermons are largely ineffective and tend to de-skill the people who sit in the pew playing a minor role, if any.
• Since monologue sermons presuppose passive listening, they have a limited impact on personal and communal formation.
• Sermons are excessively frequent, giving the congregation little space and time to work out the daily implications of one sermon before hearing another.
• Many who leave the church are weary of the dogmatism and dull rhetorical performances of the monologue sermon, complaining that they’re being spoon-fed and patronized.

Alternatives

We don’t need to abandon monologue sermons entirely, but their integration into a more varied and holistic approach to learning may be needed as we shift from Christendom to post-Christendom ways of being church. We mustn’t devalue theological training or rhetorical skill, but these gifts should equip, not dominate congregations.

A sermon should be an invitation to a conversation. In fact, the Latin term sermo originally meant “conversation.” Conversational sermons can help people explore issues, clarify questions, and identify biblical and historical resources. They can also produce biblically literate and passionate disciples of Christ.

Training is key. Preachers and church members must be taught to participate creatively and responsibly in learning communities. Otherwise, familiar problems like the pooling of ignorance, domination by insistent voices, unimaginative questions, and failure to move from theory to practice will also stymie change.

Churches can train people by slowly introducing diverse forms of interactive learning, persevering until they become familiar to the congregation. The following are some suggestions.

• Use open-ended presentations that give people time to reflect and investigate biblical teaching.
• Develop a culture where people can interrupt and interject with comments and insights.
• Offer resources rather than rhetoric by posing questions rather than dispensing answers, inviting ownership rather than imposing conclusions.
• Have several speakers debate an issue with congregational participation.
• Form discussion groups that meet during or after sermons.
• Ask several people to construct sermons together in a roundtable pulpit fashion.
• Provide preparatory reading so congregations can contribute thoughtfully.
• Develop models of theological reflection that relate biblical and historical resources to issues facing church members in daily life, moving from life to text and from text to life.
• Be sure to welcome monologue presentations as helpful contributions, but probably no more frequently than monthly, and be sure to include feedback and question times.

For centuries, we’ve treated congregations as audiences and relied too heavily on monologue sermons. Bible study groups, cell groups, adult education, and similar structures offer alternatives. But these peripheral, and often disappointing activities, have not transformed congregations into mature learning communities. More radical action is needed to equip churches for our changing times – to produce churches that can faithfully serve God’s cause in our world.

This is a plea for pastors to experiment with alternative forms of congregational learning. And it’s a call for congregations to encourage the pursuit of alternatives to the monologue sermon.

Raymond Bystrom is a recently retired professor from Mennonite Brethren Biblical Seminary, Fresno, Cal., and author of Preaching Biblical Sermons: Three Contemporary Strategies.