Amplifying Your Voice – Congregational Collaboration in Dialogic Preaching

I am the pastor of a congregation that loves to talk! My first year featured tensions with various members of the congregation who wanted to limit my Sundays in the pulpit in favor of listening to other members of the congregation. This was not the wish of most members.

Before my arrival, the congregational practice had been for members to offer leadership through preaching at least half of the Sundays. This is a congregation that takes its image of congregational leadership very seriously. I was aware and even enthusiastic about that identity before I came, but I did not have a clear idea about the idea of ​​shared preaching.
Performing the ministry of preaching most Sunday mornings is central to my understanding of pastoral ministry. As a result, he was unwilling to share the pulpit to the extent that some wanted. At the same time, I was struck by the importance of the voice of the congregation in worship. This voice is expressed in much of song, prayer, and other expressions of worship. Worship in my congregation is largely planned and led by lay people.

Theological exploration takes place in many ways as part of the structured life of the church. One of the most compelling ways is in small study groups. Whether it’s a Bible study or a book study, this format provides opportunities for dialogue. Through the give and take of questions and discussions, the depth of learning seems to deepen. I find myself stimulated and enriched.
In the process of preparing the sermon, I found myself wrestling with some of the same issues and questions that characterized our small group discussions. On occasion, I shared these questions directly with the congregation. Once they realized that you really wanted to hear from them, they began to respond with enthusiasm and depth.

I began to be more open in my preparation for opportunities, in a given Bible text or sermon topic, for these kinds of questions and was genuinely disappointed when they didn’t seem to come up. Although part of my initial motivation for shaping sermons in this way was to let this congregation speak, because they love to talk, I soon realized that this approach really helped me hear them and often affirmed my sense of where they were theologically, socially and socially. even politically.

I stopped trying to guess what the congregation was thinking. I really didn’t need to anymore. I began to clarify my own thinking while deepening my relationship with them as a community. My own motivation in my sermons shifted from trying to impress the congregation with my knowledge and eloquence to trying to find common ground, clarify understanding, and encourage growth.

This approach is working very well with the congregation I pastor. Why it works is probably the result of two factors: the congregation and me. I enjoy the interactive process because it really helps me get consistent feedback to clarify my thinking and focus my message. Sermon preparation often involves anticipating questions that may arise in people’s minds. This way, I can hear the questions. I still do all the preparation that I have done for more traditional sermons. This approach just provides an added dimension.

The second reason it seems to work is the congregation. Some congregations are content to be still and quiet and listen to the preacher. The congregation I serve is not passive, in general. I find that the dialogic approach keeps them engaged. They seem to learn a lot more with this approach.

I find that the process of developing a sermon involves discerning the key questions that arise for me from a particular biblical text. This is certainly not unique to me. Clarifying the questions focuses the entire sermon. What I have begun to do is pay attention to those questions by thinking about which of those questions the congregation would be well served to deal with themselves.

Sharing the questions helps the congregation. They have the opportunity to see the core issues as I see them and then deal with them as I have been doing. Those who respond out loud during sermon time benefit from articulating their views and being heard. For those who listen, they benefit from hearing a different voice than mine and often a different perspective than mine. The congregation benefits from hearing something of a composed congregational voice. There is a sense of empowerment in having the opportunity to express points of view and to hear colleagues express theirs. Anxiety tends to be reduced because the opinions that are shared are known. They are more likely to be shared and heard by the whole body and less likely to be reserved for conversations in the parking lot after the service.

Sharing the questions and hearing the answers helps me. I usually have an idea of ​​how people in my congregation think and feel about certain issues. Hearing them share in the context of an interactive sermon usually confirms my thoughts. Occasionally it opens up a new perspective for me that I can incorporate immediately or reflect on for future use.

The process of leading a discussion in the context of a sermon is much like teaching a class. It is important to manage the discussion so that the larger focus of the sermon is not obscured and at the same time is open to the thoughts and viewpoints of members of the congregation. One of the most effective ways I have to manage the discussion is to be the one who recognizes and calls each speaker.

We generally do not make microphones available to individual speakers in the congregation, so I listen to each speaker and reiterate what is said. The rephrasing process gives me a certain amount of control, although the fact that many people can hear the original speaker makes me responsible for the accuracy of my rephrasing. I use pastoral conversation skills to listen and then reaffirm what I have heard. The restatement gives me an opportunity to frame the comment to help clarify how it fits into the larger context of the sermon. That is useful for me and also for the other members of the congregation. It can be of great help to the speaker. I usually check with the speaker, whose comments I have rephrased, to see if he agrees with what I have said.

The use of interactive sermons is not a panacea. There are times when it is not appropriate. There are some who really don’t like discussion, for whom it interrupts the flow of the sermon. Often times, a more conventional approach to a sermon is the best option. I have sometimes tried to force dialogue into a sermon when it really didn’t fit. Sometimes I have asked the wrong questions or confusing questions.

Making those decisions is far from an exact science. I find, in my environment, that the congregation generally appreciates the opportunity to participate even when my questions are not that helpful. When it doesn’t seem to work, I have to deal with my own anxiety. When I can keep my anxiety low, I really listen, I maintain a sense of joy and openness, discussion time flows much better. It is more useful.

My anxiety is the key. The best way to control my anxiety is to be as clear as possible about my questions and the reasons why I ask them. When I’m clear about my reasons for asking, I can hear what people are really saying without worrying about how that might relate to what I’m saying. Connections seem to occur more naturally. The results are very encouraging. I find that my intuitive sense of what the congregation is thinking asserts itself. Sometimes it is corrected. Ultimately, my congregation, which loves to speak, feels heard by me.