6 Comments
User's avatar
Darryl Willis's avatar

For years I was part of a church that even changed the name of the homiletical event. We called them conversations—not sermons. We’d begin with open ended questions followed with a brief lecture and then more discussion.

We didn’t view the lecture as “truth” distilled into a 10 minute challenge to do something. Instead, whoever spoke was saying, “This is what I discovered studying this text—does it ring true?”

Even our weekly practice of the Eucharist intentionally included discussion between the participants.

Expand full comment
David Young's avatar

So, can I conclude that the Sermons on the Mount and on the Plain were compilations of things Jesus said rather than monologues? Or were Jesus’ teaching methods more diverse—sometimes questioning, sometimes telling engaging stories and sometimes speaking for prolonged periods, sometimes challenging, sometimes comforting—sometimes both to different members of his “audience?”

Expand full comment
Paul Dazet, a wounded healer's avatar

Absolutely - he used so many methods. You are spot on David. I wrote the post as part of a series about sacred conversation. I believe it is a spiritual practice that is needed in today's church (and world), and was modeled for us by Jesus.

Expand full comment
Ruth's avatar

Thank you. I really appreciate this

Expand full comment
Chris Warner's avatar

Excellent, Paul, thanks so much for this post.

Expand full comment
Mark Bair's avatar

Very stimulating! I’m going to ponder this one!

Expand full comment