Monologue and Dialog – examining Scripture
In this post, I hope to answer the following question: Do the authors of Scripture command or model either monologue, dialog, a combination, or something else as a manner of speaking when believers meet together? The context is very important, because I am primarily interested in the meeting of the church.
In my previous post, “Monologue and Dialog – defining the question“, I offered the following definitions:
Monologue: a long utterance by one person (especially one that prevents others from participating in the conversation)
Dialog: a reciprocal conversation between two or more entities
(Please see my previous post for a fuller explanation of this discussion.)
Let’s begin by looking at a few passages of Scripture. In 1 Corinthians 14, Paul is speaking specifically about the church meeting. His entire argument centers on what is appropriate when the church comes together. In verse 29, he begins to give some instructions for prophecy:
Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others weigh what is said. If a revelation is made to another sitting there, let the first be silent. (1 Corinthians 14:29-30 ESV)
So, while one person is prophesying (speaking a revelation from God), that person should stop speaking if another person desires to speak. Notice that Paul does not consider whether one person is more mature than another, or whether one person is a better speaker than the other, or whether one person is an elder/pastor while the other is not. In this case, at least, Paul does not limit the number of people speaking to only one person.
Similarly, notice that others weigh what is said by the prophets. So, besides the prophets, there are other people taking part in the meeting of the church.
I do not equate “prophecy” with teaching or preaching. However, in this passage, the instructions for “prophecy” appear to cover any type of speaking that is edifying to the church without interpretation, while the instructions for “tongues” appears to cover any type of speaking that is edifying to the church only with interpretation. Thus, it seems valid to apply these same instructions to teaching, exhortation, and other types of speaking when the church meets.
Second, notice this passage from Acts:
And he entered the synagogue and for three months spoke boldly, reasoning and persuading them about the kingdom of God. But when some became stubborn and continued in unbelief, speaking evil of the Way before the congregation, he withdrew from them and took the disciples with him, reasoning daily in the hall of Tyrannus. (Acts 19:8-9 ESV)
Luke says that Paul “reasoned” with the Jews in the synagogue, and he also “reasoned” with “the disciples” in the hall of Tyrannus. The word translated “reasoned” is also regularly translated “discussed” or “disputed”. For example, the same verb is translated “argued” in the following passage:
But they kept silent, for on the way they had argued with one another about who was the greatest. (Mark 9:34 ESV)
Similarly, this same verb describes what Paul was doing until late at night in Troas:
On the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked [reasoned, discussed] with them, intending to depart on the next day, and he prolonged his speech until midnight. (Acts 20:7 ESV)
This same verb is found later in verse 9. It seems that Paul’s “speech” or “message” may have included more than a monologue from Paul. The verb used at least opens up the possibility that others took part in Paul’s message.
So, at least in Ephesus (Acts 19) and Troas (Acts 20), Paul spoke to believers in such a way as to allow others to have input into what he was saying. This does not necessarily mean that Paul conducted a full-blown discussion, or that there was a question-and-answer session. However, it does seem to indicate that neither Paul, nor Luke, nor the others involved expected only Paul to speak.
Finally, in the book of Hebrews, the author instructs his readers:
And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near. (Hebrews 10:24-25 ESV)
We shouldn’t miss the fact that the opposite of “neglect to meet together” is “encouraging one another”. There is an implied reciprocal (i.e. “one another”) aspect to our exhortations. In fact, the author had already told his readers to “encourage one another daily” (Hebrews 3:13). Just as all are responsible for “drawing near” (Hebrews 10:21) and “holding fast” (Hebrews 10:22), it would seem that all are responsible for “considering one another” by not neglecting to meet together, but by encouraging one another. Again, more than one person was involved in this “encouraging”.
There are other instances of believers meeting together and more than one person speaking (i.e., Acts 15:6-29, 15:30-33). There is also at least one instance of believers meeting together when only one person spoke (Acts 20:17-38). In this passage, Luke records that Paul “spoke” to the elders from Ephesus, using the standard work for “speak”, not the word discussed above, nor the word for “teach” or “preach”. Thus, in this passage at least, we may have an example of believers meeting together when only one person speaks.
So, there certainly may have been instances where only one person spoke during the meeting of the church. But, Scripture does not give us many of these examples. Instead, we primarily have examples of several people either speaking or having the option to speak when the church meets. Similarly, when teaching specifically about the church meeting, we are not instructed that only one person should speak, but that all should have that option. It seems that in general, even when one person primarily spoke during a meeting, and even when that person was an apostle like Paul, there was the possibility and probability that others would take part.
Thus, I would lean toward Scripture instructing us to use a combination of both monologue and dialog when the church meets, with dialog being default or primary.
Monologue and Dialog – 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 dialog 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 dialog. We can teach people how to live a life “worthy of the gospel” with either monologue or dialog. Thus, preferring dialog 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 dialog. More importantly – and the purpose of this two-part series – I think it is important to determine if either monologue or dialog is commanded or modelled 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, dialog, 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)
Dialog: 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 dialog, 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 tradtional 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, dialog, a combination, or something else is either commanded or modelled.
Little Faith or Great Faith
In Matthew 14-15, two of the accounts that mention faith are very interesting and thought-provoking to me.
First, in Matthew 14:22-33 (immediately following the account of Jesus feeding more than 5000 people with five loaves of bread and two fish), Jesus sends his disciples out onto the sea in a boat. In the middle of the night – in the middle of a storm – Jesus comes out to them, walking on the water. The disciples think that Jesus is a ghost, but he assures them that he is not a ghost. Peter asks if he can walk out to Jesus, and Jesus tells him to come. Peter steps out of the boat, and walks out to Jesus on the water – just as Jesus is walking on the water. Peter becomes afraid because of the wind and begins to sink into the water. He asks Jesus to save him, so Jesus grabs his hand and lifts him out of the water. Then, Jesus says to Peter:
“O you of little faith, why did you doubt?” (Matthew 14:31 ESV)
Next, in Matthew 15:21-28 (just a few paragraphs later and following Jesus’ declaration that a person is not defiled by what goes into the body), we find the account of a Gentile woman coming to Jesus. She asks Jesus to help her daughter who is possessed by a demon. Jesus said that he came for the “lost sheep of the house of Israel”. The woman continues to beg for help, and Jesus said that it is not right to give the children’s bread to dogs. The woman says that even the dogs eat scraps of food that fall from the table. Then, Jesus says to the woman:
“O woman, great is your faith! Be it done for you as you desire.” (Matthew 15:28 ESV)
A man who walks on water but begins to fear the wind and doubt demonstrates “little faith”. A woman who continues asking Jesus for help, even when he initially refuses, demonstrates “much faith”.
I don’t really have much more to say about these two passages. They are fairly straightforward. I want to be one with “much faith”, but I’m not sure that I would even step out of the boat like the one with “little faith”.
Faith is important in Matthew. I want faith to be an important aspect of my life, too. Every time I think I’m starting to understand faith, I realize how little faith I actually have.
Perhaps one of the first steps of faith is realizing just how little faith we actually have, so that we can honestly call out, “I believe; help my unbelief”.
On the Sermon
I’ve enjoyed reading some of the blog posts from Michael at “Love Broke Thru“. Here is one snippet from his post called “How We Do Church: To Preach or Not to Preach?“:
The modern rhetorical sermon is at once both effective and ineffective. It is effective in that it usually does what it is intended to do quite well. It is intended to be a convincing and commanding argument that persuades its listener to certain actions or convinces its listener of certain truths. In the hands of a skillful and powerful orator, the rhetorical sermon is very effective at accomplishing its mission. It is ineffective in that it does little to foster spiritual maturity a deeper grasp of Scripture in its listeners.
Instead of the rhetorical sermon, Michael suggests discussion as a means of teaching and discipleship during the church meeting (see his post “How We Do Church: Discussion, the Fast Track to Ministry“).
So, what do you think? Which is more effective in helping people grow toward maturity in Christ: monologue, dialogue, a combination, something else?
(HT: Dave Black)
Teaching in the context of living
Several days ago, I had the opportunity to have lunch with a young, single guy who has been meeting with us on Sundays for a few weeks. In the course of the conversation, he said that he wanted to talk about ecclesiology. Even though I’m not really interested in that subject (ahem), I was cordial to his request.
He began to talk about the church that he had been part of. He was not talking negatively about the church – in fact, he praised the church for what it was trying to do, and he praised the pastors and leadership. He said that he really appreciated the main pastor’s preaching, and he usually agreed with him.
Then he said something that I’ve been thinking and writing about for some time, but it was encouraging hearing it from someone else. This young man said that while he enjoyed the pastor’s sermon, he did not have a context in which to understand what the man was trying to teach.
I asked my new friend what he meant. He said, “My only relationship with this pastor is through a 30 minute sermon on Sunday morning. I don’t know anything about his life, or his family, or the way he treats his neighbors, or anything else. I only know what he tells me during his sermons. There is no relational context for learning what he is trying to teach.”
As I continued to talk to this young man, and to hear his heart for learning through relationships as well as through the spoken message, I couldn’t help but think of the examples that we have in Scripture.
Notice, for example, what Paul tells the elders from Ephesus:
And when they came to him, he said to them: “You yourselves know how I lived among you the whole time from the first day that I set foot in Asia…” (Acts 20:18 ESV)
Also, this is what Paul reminds the believers in Thessalonika:
For you remember, brothers, our labor and toil: we worked night and day, that we might not be a burden to any of you, while we proclaimed to you the gospel of God. You are witnesses, and God also, how holy and righteous and blameless was our conduct toward you believers. (1 Thessalonians 2:9-10 ESV)
He tells the Philippians:
What you have learned and received and heard and seen in me – practice these things, and the God of peace will be with you. (Philippians 4:9 ESV)
The obvious exception to this pattern seems to be that when Paul wrote to the church in Rome, he had not been to Rome, although he seemed to know many of the believers there. However, even in this case, Paul later lived among the Roman believers for at least two years (Acts 28:30).
In other words, Paul did not intend for his words alone (neither his spoken words nor his written words) to make up the extent of his service to the people of God. He recognized the importance of living with the people as part of his work. He shared his life with them, and they shared their lives with him. Paul had much, much more than a “speaking ministry” among the people.
His words then often pointed back to his example of living and working among the people.
Today, too often, teachers spend very little time with the people they are attempting to teach. As my young friend said, there is no context for their teaching. This is not discipleship or teaching in the biblical sense, or in the sense that either Jesus or Paul modelled for us.
Instead, we need to live with the people that we hope to teach. Our teaching must be in the context of our living if we hope to see transformation – both our own transformation and transformation in the lives of others.
Marriage and Discipleship
Last year, as Margaret and I were spending time with a young couple who were planning to get married, I wrote a post called “Marriage and Discipleship“. In this post, I suggested that if discipleship happened primarily through relationships, then our primary disciple and our primary discipler should be our spouse – at least for those of us who are married. I hope you enjoy this post.
——————————————————–
A couple of months ago, two new friends of ours asked Margaret and me if we would do pre-marital counseling for them. We started meeting with them a couple of weeks ago. It has been a blessing to get to know them more and to encourage them as they prepare to be married.
I don’t treat “pre-marital” counseling much differently that other opportunities of discipleship. My desire is to help them grow in maturity in Christ. As this happens, their relationship with one another will also grow and mature.
The last time we met, we talked about the sanctifying nature of marriage. Actually, they brought this up. They can already see how God is using their relationship with one another to grow them spiritually.
Before two followers of Jesus Christ are married – before they are husband and wife – they are brother and sister in Christ. Thus, the foundational relationship for a marriage is the relationship between believers. Also, since this brother and sister in Christ is spending so much time together, it is by nature a discipling relationship. Of course, it may not be a positive discipling relationship, but it is a discipling relationship nonetheless.
So, marriage is based on a discipling relationship. The husband and wife should encourage one another and help one another grow toward maturity in Christ. Since the two spend so much time together, and since they know one another better than anyone else, and since they are probably more open and honest with one another than with anyone else, marriage is also the most important discipling relationship.
While it is important for this discipling relationship to include activities such as prayer and reading Scripture together, there is much more involved in this. In fact, if a couple (or any two or more people) only pray and read Scripture together, I would not call that a discipling relationship. Instead, in a discipling relationship the people help one another follow Jesus Christ, recognizing that the other person is not perfect, accepting and loving them as they are, and helping them grow through the trials and struggles of life.
I think it helps a marriage to recognize that the two people are in this type of discipling relationship. When we read Scripture as it defines how believers should interact with one another, we should also recognize that this describes how a married couple should interact with one another as well. For example, consider this important passage from Philippians:
Do nothing from rivalry or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of others. (Philippians 2:3-4 ESV)
While Paul writes this in general to followers of Christ in Philippi, it is especially applicable to a husband and wife in their interaction with one another. In fact, I think it is impossible to understand a husband’s role in a marriage or a wife’s role in a marriage without first recognizing these and other basic responsibilities that one believer has toward another believer.
As I look back over the time that Margaret and I have been married, I can see that Margaret has been my primary discipler throughout that time. I have learned more about God and life from her than from anyone else – and that includes pastors, preachers, and teachers. Why? Because I am with her every day. I see my own faults and weaknesses and sins most clearly in my relationship with her. I learn from her words and examples more than from anyone else.
And, perhaps most importantly, God expresses his love for me through Margaret than through anyone else on earth – in other words, Margaret is the channel through which God most demonstrates his love for me. This does not mean that Margaret is perfect, or that her demonstration of God’s love is on the same level as Christ’s demonstration of God’s love. But, God’s love is real and clear and intimate – and our relationship has been the best reflection of that love.
Have you thought about your relationship with your spouse as a discipling relationship? Have you thought about your spouse as your discipler? What insights can you add to this discussion?
The third greatest commandment
I’m sure that most of my readers are familiar with Jesus’ declaration of the greatest commandment(s):
And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?” And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:35-40 ESV)
So, a lawyer asks Jesus which is the “great commandment”. Jesus replied with two: 1) Love God and 2) Love your neighbor. But, Jesus said that the second was like the first. Also, Jesus said that “all the Law and the Prophets” depend on “these two commandments”, not on one or the other, but on both.
As I was thinking about this recently, I wondered why Jesus gave the man two commandments. I mean, the man only asked for one, but Jesus gave him two. Why didn’t Jesus just give him one? Or, why didn’t Jesus give him three? What would have been the “third greatest commandment” according to Jesus?
When I read what people are saying about Jesus or about Christianity, it often seems that they think “the third greatest commandment” is more important than the first two that Jesus mentioned. What do I mean? Well, in books and teachings and blog posts and other means, people are often telling Christians what they must do to follow Jesus’ teachings. And, love is very rarely at the top of the list. Instead, it seems people like to focus on what they must consider to be Jesus’ “third greatest commandment”. You know, things like:
Have faith!
Study the Bible!
Join the church!
Give your money!
Homeschool your children!
Be baptized!
Sign this covenant/confession!
Make disciples!
Speak in tongues!
Pray!
Sing worship songs!
Be involved in the programs of the church!
Read the right books!
Of course, there are others who prefer to focus on Jesus’ “third greatest commandment” as a prohibition or negative command:
Do not drink!
Do not curse!
Do not join THAT church!
Do not send your kids to public schools!
Do not speak in tongues!
Do not hang out with THOSE people!
Do not read THOSE books!
I guess I could go on and on. Now, some of these are very good things. But, Jesus didn’t list these among his great commandment list. Instead, Jesus stopped at two: 1) Love God and 2) Love your neighbor.
Why would Jesus stop with these two? Why did he not include other commands in his list? Are we wrong if we place alot of emphasis on love? Are we wrong if we don’t place alot emphasis on love?
Why are you here?
Last Sunday morning, as we were meeting together with the church, I asked people this question: “Why are you here?”
I did not ask this in the metaphysical sense of, “Why do you exist?”
What I mean is, “Why are you meeting with this group of people in this place at this time? What is your reason for being part of this church meeting?”
So, I’ll ask my readers the same question: “What was your purpose in meeting together with the church the last time you met with them?”
Extraction or Insertion
Strider at “Tales from Middle Earth” is one of the best storytellers that I know. I always enjoy his blog posts, and I enjoyed meeting him a few months ago. His latest post is called “A missional paradigm“.
He begins his post like this:
So, here is a story of a significant paradigm shift in my ministry understanding. It concerns the idea of ‘extraction evangelism’. Now, this may not be a concept that many of you know or understand. Extraction evangelism is really just normal evangelism, it is the kind that usually happens unless something intentional is done to stop it. What it means is that a lost person living in a lost community gets saved. Someone shares Jesus with that person and that person leaves his/her lost community and joins the community of the redeemed- usually that means they start meeting with a group of Christians whom they previously did not know. The group rejoices because this person has found Jesus and is no longer lost and their Church has now increased in size signifying God’s blessing on the group.
Now, this model is very problematic in a Muslim society such as the one I live in here in Gondor. First, very often there are no Churches for individuals to join! Second, the individual’s community does not usually give that person up without a fight. Family and community persecution are very common here even though technically the Government of Gondor claims to provide for freedom of religion. But the biggest problem is that once a person leaves their community to join a Christian community then that lost community is left without a witness and is now more resistant to the Gospel than ever. For all these reasons we have tried from the beginning of our ministry here to avoid extraction evangelism.
From this point, Strider tells a story about a co-worker who tries to encourage locals to consider evangelizing entire families.
This post helped me think through some of the things that we’ve been trying to do in a government assisted housing development. We’ve been spending time in this neighborhood for more than six months now, and we’ve gotten to know many of the neighbors very well.
We’re not trying to “extract” them from their environment. Instead, we’re attempting to insert ourselves and other believers into a community that already exists. There are already relationships there. We don’t want to destroy those relationships. Instead, we hope to see those relationships transformed by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Have any of you had experiences with either “extraction evangelism” or “insertion evangelism”?
Upcoming Seminar: Developing A Biblical Ecclesiology
I’ve been given the opportunity to present a seminar on the topic “Developing a Biblical Ecclesiology”. The seminar will be Saturday, March 21, 2009 from 8:30 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. There will be no charge and breakfast will be included. The seminar will be held at the facilities of Bethel Hill Baptist Church in Roxboro, NC.
While I gave a similar lecture last year in a New Testament class, this seminar will be different. I will focus on the relationships between the church and God, between brothers and sisters in Christ, and between the church and the world. We will also discuss some of the implications of living out these relationships.
I hope many of my readers will attend this seminar. If you need more information, contact me at aknox@sebts.edu. I will post more information about the seminar as soon as it is available.