Monologue and Dialogue – defining the question
Two years ago, I wrote a two part series on the use of monologue (one person speaking) and dialogue (multiple people speaking) when the church meets. The first post was called “Monologue and Dialogue – defining the question.” I will post the second part of this series tomorrow.
———————————————————————
Monologue and Dialogue – defining the question
Last week, in my post “On the Sermon“, I linked to a post called “How We Do Church: To Preach or Not to Preach?” in which the author (Michael) suggested that monologue was less effective than discussion in helping people toward maturity. I said very little in the post itself, and simple asked this question:
So, what do you think? Which is more effective in helping people grow toward maturity in Christ: monologue, dialogue, a combination, something else?
I was very specific in the way that I asked my question. I did not ask about the effectiveness of preaching as opposed to teaching. But, during the discussion, while some suggested that both monologue and dialogue were good and necessary in some contexts, it seems that most wanted to argue for either “preaching” or “discussion”.
I think this is a false dichotomy, primarily because Scripture does not define “preaching” or “teaching” for us in those terms. Thus, we can proclaim the good news of Jesus Christ (“preach”) with either monologue or dialogue. We can teach people how to live a life “worthy of the gospel” with either monologue or dialogue. Thus, preferring dialogue is not the same thing as denying the necessity or effectiveness of either preaching or teaching.
Instead, I think it would be beneficial to consider the effectiveness of either monologue or dialogue. More importantly – and the purpose of this two-part series – I think it is important to determine if either monologue or dialogue is commanded or modeled by the New Testament. In particular, my concern is the context of the church meeting. When the church meets together, do the New Testament authors either command or model monologue, dialogue, a combination, or something else?
Let’s start with a couple of definitions so that we are all talking about the same thing. These are the definitions that I will use in these two posts (I’ve included links to the sources of the definitions):
Monologue: a long utterance by one person (especially one that prevents others from participating in the conversation)
Dialogue: a reciprocal conversation between two or more entities
The distinction between the two terms is very important. In a monologue, only one person speaks, while all others listen to what is said. Other are not allowed to speak (by either explicit or implicit agreement). In a dialogue, more than one person speaks or has the freedom to speak. Others are allowed to speak (again by either explicit or implicit agreement), even if one person speaks for most of the time, or even if others choose not to speak.
It is not my desire to question the monologue sermon simply because I want to question traditional practices. I am not opposed to traditional practices if they are scriptural. I am opposed to traditional practices if they are contrary to Scripture or if they hinder the church from growing toward maturity as described in Scripture. I am also opposed to innovative practices if they are contrary to Scripture or if they hinder the church from growing toward maturity as described in Scripture.
Thus, my primary goal in examining the way believers should speak during the church meeting (as well as other practices that occur during the church meeting) is to see the church – all believers – grow in maturity toward Christ-likeness.
My purpose in the next post is to consider passages from Scripture in which one or more than one person speaks while the believers are meeting together in order to determine if monologue, dialogue, a combination, or something else is either commanded or modelled.
It’s called ‘Status quo’ for a reason…
Joel at “The Double Edged Sword” has written a post that has made me stop and think… seriously. The post is called “If I…” Short name… but big post.
He begins by noting that if he stood against the common enemies of American evangelicalism, then he would be heralded a hero.
But, what if he stood against some of the problems without American Christianity in general and evangelicalism in particular?
Joel writes:
But…. if I were to confront the denominational teachings and doctrines of men and challenge Believers to examine how their religious ways just might be in direct opposition to God’s Word, I’m deemed a prideful and arrogant heretic that needs to just shut his mouth.
I find this mysterious fact to be quite interesting. The religious roots of American Christianity run deep my friends. If we’re too close-minded to even ask if we might have some things wrong as Believers (even if it’s our religious Christian/American heritage), we’re treading on dangerous ground. Who will hear what the Spirit is saying to The Church in this hour?
This is a very good question. And, it caused me to wonder… how would I (who do I) react when someone questions my own “Status quo”?
I asked Joel something to that effect in the comments, and I think he gave an excellent answer.
What do you think?
Learning from a Martial Arts Camp
Last weekend, my son Jeremy participated in a martial arts camp. Jeremy is a 2nd degree black belt in Tae Kwon Do, and he’s just started learning one of the forms of karate.
I noticed something last weekend. During the camp, the instructors talked about the forms and movements, showed the students how to do the forms and movements (and even explained why), then helped the students do the forms and movements. Often, the students would even help one another.
On the drive back home, I kept comparing this martial arts camp to several Christian conferences that I’ve attended. At all of those conferences, people talked about stuff, but that’s where it ended. This is not disciple making.
I’m tired of just talking about stuff; I’m ready to show people how to live for Christ and then help them live for Christ and then live for Christ together.
I’ll probably never have my name added to a conference speaking list, but that’s okay. I’ll be making disciples instead.
Are they followers?
According to Scripture, there were times when Jesus spoke to large crowds. We read about Jesus speaking to a large crowd in Matthew 5-7, for example.
But, were these people considered Jesus’ followers?
I don’t think so.
You see, being a follower (disciple) of Jesus required more than listening to him speak. Being a follower of Jesus required doing what he said and what he did. In other words, only those people who lived like Jesus lived where his followers (disciples).
What about today? Who are following you? Are the the people sitting in the audience when you speak or preach followers? Are the people who are reading your books or articles or blog posts your followers?
Or, are you truly only leading those people who are following the example of your life?
Since Jesus said that leaders among the church are those who serve the most, then your followers are those who are following your example and serving others… assuming you are serving others.
Money back guarantee?
Sometime last week, I saw a bumper sticker that read, “Try Jesus.” I asked my family what they thought it meant. We tossed around a few ideas – none of them good ideas as far as I could tell. So, I put the question to my Facebook friends: What does this bumper sticker? How can it be a good exhortation?
Now, it seems that Dan from “The Ekklesia is Southern Maine” has thought about this bumper sticker and written a serious post about it. His post is called “Trying Jesus.” After giving us two possibilities for the meaning of “Try Jesus,” Dan says:
I think they both have a major flaw. It is one of the two words, and obviously it isn’t the word “Jesus.†The word “try†implies seeing if something works for you, it’s as if you are saying “give Jesus a shot.†Why? For practical benefit. I don’t believe we can simply “give Jesus a shot†since following him implies dying to one’s self and completely surrendering to Him as Lord. It seems hard to me to believe that you could try that on for size.
Exactly! Jesus isn’t a product to be tried in order to decide if we like it (him) or not. We can’t try surrender. We can’t try death. We can’t try… well, you get the picture.
Of course, I’ve run into people who have said something like, “I’ve tried that church stuff (or religion stuff), and it didn’t work for me.” I think the answer to a statement like this is, “You’re absolutely right. Trying it will never work for you.”
What do you think?
Colossians 1:21-23 – Stable and Steadfast?
Okay, so this post is not really part of my series on my study through Colossians.
However, as I’ve been studying through Colossians, I’ve noticed the importance that Paul places on remaining faithful, steadfast, strong, walking in Christ, etc.
For example, consider the passage below which is part of his discussion of the preeminence of Jesus:
And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister. (Colossians 1:21-23 ESV)
We like to claim the promises of this passage: reconciled, presented holy and blameless and above reproach. But, what about the warning: “if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel.”
It doesn’t seem like we can accept the promises without the warning, since Paul wrote them both. What do you think Paul meant by this?
A wolf in sheep’s clothing?
Do you see the young, good looking guy in the picture? No? Well, you do see the guy in the picture, right?
Well, that guy – whether he is young and good looking or not – can be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. At times, he can teach and lead in a way that is contrary to God’s will. It’s true. He’s not perfect.
That guy in the picture is one of the reasons that I’m glad that our church has recognized (appointed) several people to be pastors/elders/overseers.
You see, if the church relied on that guy in the picture, they would be headed the wrong way at times. But, the church can now follow the example of several different people. Sometimes, one or more of them may go astray. But, the other elders (and the other brothers and sisters for that matter) are there to say, “Whoa! Wait just a minute. Are you sure that you’re headed in the right direction? I don’t think God wants us to follow you there.”
It’s awesome how the Holy Spirit works through my brothers and sisters to bring me back in line with the will of God when I begin to stray. Again, I’m glad I’m not the head guy… the senior pastor… the guy in charge. I’ll leave all that to Jesus, and keep following him together with my brothers and sisters.
Who should teach?
In his latest post, Eric from “A Pilgrim’s Progress” presents another article in his series on house church: “House Church – Teaching.”
(By the way, it should be mentioned that Eric is presenting a particular form of meeting as a “house church.” All house churches do not follow what Eric is describing.)
In his post, Eric presents scriptural evidence that elders should teach, those gifted as teachers should teach, and others should teach as well.
I like the way that he concludes best of all. Eric points out that while teaching with words is important, teaching through actions is usually more effective:
Teaching, then, ought to be more than just verbal instruction. Â Teaching is most effective when it is experienced. Â Therefore, in the life of the church we best teach and are taught through both hearing and doing. To follow the model set forth by our Lord, we teach and learn through service to others.
In fact, I would say that teaching with words becomes effective only when it is combined with teaching through actions.
What do you think?
James is not speaking of theological concepts
Last week, Arthur from “The Voice of One Crying Out in Suburbia” returned from a trip to Haiti where he was working with orphans. He talks about that trip – and some of the orphans that he met – in a post called “Beoda.”
Arthur’s post is primarily about an 11 year old boy named Beoda who lost his father in the earthquake last year. Apparently, spending time with Beoda and other orphans taught Arthur a very important lessons:
I asked Beoda and another young boy, Stevenson, to write their names in the small Bible I brought with me on the page facing the first chapter of James to remind me that James is not speaking of theological concepts to be debated in the ivy covered halls of academia. He was speaking of real people, real orphans who had their lives turned upside down. Real widows who lost their husband and often had children to care for in a very different, very difficult world. James was writing about Beoda and Selene, about Stevenson, about Kimberly.
Yes. YES! We MUST move beyond theological concepts.
What do you think about when you think of “love”? Do you think of people or concepts? What about service or discipleship or missions? What about orphans or widows? What about the least of these?
If we are still thinking only in terms of theological concepts and if we are not truly living these things among real people with real stories and real names, then we do not understand them at all.
They don’t know who they are
We have two dogs. And those dogs have a big problem: they don’t know who they are.
Now, you’re probably thinking that I will say that our dogs think they are humans. But, that’s one thing they get right. They know that they are dogs, and they know that being a dog is better than being human.
But, still, they don’t know who they are.
First, there’s Lucy, a border collie mix that we rescued from a local shelter. Border collies are very active outside dogs, right? Well, not Lucy. Lucy thinks that she’s an inside dog… and a lap dog on top of that. As a matter of fact, on a recent long road trip, Lucy rode in the back seat literally sitting in Miranda’s lap.
Then, there’s Aggie, our scottish terrier. While Aggie is a small dog with a nice clip, she prefers to play outside. She recently spent a week playing with a basset hound treeing squirrels.
Lucy doesn’t know that she’s a border collie, and Aggie doesn’t know that she’s a scottish terrier. Instead, Lucy thinks that she’s a toy lap dog, while Aggie thinks that she’s a hound dog.
I think alot of Christians have this same problem. No, they don’t think that they’re dogs, but they don’t know who they are.
They don’t know that they are God’s children – sons and daughters of the Creator and King of the universe.
They don’t know that they are redeemed, forgiven, and justified by their big brother and Lord Jesus Christ.
They don’t know that they are indwelled, gifted, and empowered by the Holy Spirit.
Or, if they do know these things, so many Christians do not live as if they truly believe these things.
Further, many Christians don’t know that they are priests, ministers, missionaries, and disciplers. It’s pretty obvious that Jesus’ followers don’t know this about themselves, because saw few function in these ways.
What do you think? Do you agree that many Christians don’t know who they are? How do we help our brothers and sisters know who they are in Christ and what the Spirit wants to do through them for the glory of God?