Literature Review for Collaborative Preaching

In reviewing the research already completed on collaborative preaching, two challenges emerge for the postmodern preacher: changes in thinking about truth and authority, and a perceived disconnect or gap between the pulpit and pew. To face these challenges, there is an emerging interest in adopting a collaborative approach to preaching. This approach has taken on many different names, and just as many ways of implementation. For any successful collaborative preaching to occur, the preacher must enhance his listening skills and form a functioning, diverse, and healthy team of collaborators. This approach has become successful for many and has shed light on numerous other benefits resulting from its implementation.

Truth and Authority

The modern Enlightenment worldview states that truth can be understood as absolute and universal. This view holds that if something is true now, it must always be true everywhere and at all times. With the rise of the scientific method and the successes in the scientific community which explain much of the natural world, reason was given the highest respect in the process of discernment of universal truth. Adversely, truth today “is no longer seen as divinely revealed from on high but is, rather, objectively discovered from below.”[1]

This approach to truth comprises a shift of emphasis from an objective, scientific approach to a subjective encounter with the world. Instead of using reason as the sole authority in determining truth, this approach has been connected with, and limited by, “individual and communal experience, thus stripping the power from any grand narrative (be it mythic, theological, or scientific) to define the worldview of all.”[2] This makes truth and meaning individualistic, moving the universal question from, “What is the meaning of life?” to “What is the meaning of my life?”[3]

People in the postmodern world are “less concerned with the task of looking for meaning and are more about the task of  ‘making meaning.’”[4] Within the postmodern culture, meaning is found conversationally, given and taken from "conversation" partners. Finding meaning in this way could be comparable to cafeteria-style, where one picks and chooses what one wishes from the different conversation partners while leaving the less appealing for others to consume.[5]

More commonly, people in Western culture “view truth as particular, local, and thus relative, often without even realizing it; they are comfortable with multiple truths, with competing truths.”[6] Therefore, the preacher's task has become problematic since he can no longer “presuppose the general recognition of his authority as a clergyman, of the authority of his institution, or the authority of Scripture.”[7] Tornfelt adds, “The authority which may have been granted in another generation has been replaced by questions, suspicion and in some instances, disrespect.”[8]

The once singular public voice of authority found in churches (the preacher), has moved from an authoritative proclamation to using inductive, narrative, or dialogue preaching.[9] Mistrust is bred as Western culture continues to gradually cast aside trust and respect of those in authority, so a broader participation within the preaching process may aid churches in communicating the truth more effectively.[10] A collegial method of preaching that invites “participation and diffuses human power may just earn the Church a better opportunity to be heard.”[11]

Biblical interpretations and theological insights of the congregants find a voice in the preaching when preaching becomes a “rhetoric of listening.” When this technique is used over time, collaborative preaching offers empowerment to congregants that they may claim their ideas, forms of religious experience and theological vision as they are uttered to the congregation from the pulpit.[12] Therefore, the sacred text can become the authority rather than the preacher, if the preacher does not have to maintain an exclusive and expert hold on the truth.[13]

Disconnect Between Pulpit and Pew

Another challenge the postmodern preacher encounters is a disconnect between the pulpit and the pew. To emphasize this disconnect, Rose describes three broad theories of preaching that have dominated the twentieth-century homiletical world. The traditional or classic homiletical theory draws from John A. Broadus's 1870 textbook, which defined preaching for the first half of the twentieth century, and Jesse Burton Weatherspoon’s revisions in 1944.[14] Rose traces this approach even further back to Augustine (354-430 C.E) and “his homiletical theory that joined Christian preaching and classical rhetoric.”[15]

The main emphasis of this theory is placed upon persuasion and envisions the preacher as an authority figure who informs people what to believe and why they should believe a certain way. McClellan describes it this way, “The modern preacher is laden with the metaphor of the expert. Being the most highly trained and most articulate student of theology among the congregation, the modern preacher is expected to be, and indeed sometimes enjoys the prospect of being, the best.”[16] While this was and continues to be a dominant view of preaching, “the most fundamental problem with traditional theory is that it is predicated on a gap that separates the preacher and the congregation.”[17] The gap is seen when the preacher is viewed as the sender of communication, and the congregation as the recipient, who sits passively below listening to the preacher proclaim absolute truth.[18] Thus one of the goals of those preachers should be to shorten the gap.

The second theory Rose evaluates is the "kerygmatic theory," which "describes the purpose of preaching as a both/and: both transmission of the kerygma and the event of God’s speaking.”[19] The first part of the both/and grows from the influence of C.H. Dodd’s attempt to identify the apostle’s original kerygma that preaching must proclaim. The second half of the both/and stems from Barth's contribution, who saw the preacher as a “herald” through whom God would speak, in essence, making God the actual preacher.[20] This theory places the same gap between the pulpit and pew as the traditional theory does and can even intensify the gap since “the preacher's words are to be identified with God's words.”[21]

Rose labels the third theory as "transformational," though it can be described many other ways, “word-event,” “existential,” “poetic,” “narrative,” “imaginative,” and “creative.” She chose to label it “transformational” because “it conveys the commonly held belief that a sermon should be an experience that transforms the worshipers.”[22] While this is her stance, it can be argued that the other two approaches could also be classified as “transformational,” but in this broad theory she is including those scholars who are associated with the “New Homiletic.” While it would appear the gap between the pulpit and pew is reduced, it remains. “The preacher remains in the privileged position of the one who has already experienced the transformation that the congregation now needs to experience.”[23]

To eliminate this gap, Rose proposes a roundtable approach where the preacher and the congregation "are not separate entities but a community of faith" who stand together as explorers.[24] The pulpit is no longer seen as the sender while the pews are the receivers, but rather the preacher and the worshipers are in conversation with one another, and the gap is relocated to being between the community of faith and the text. To bolster her view, she pulls from Dietrich Ritschl’s book, A Theology of Proclamation, where he states, “Preaching is not dispensing power or giving something to people, but preaching is receiving power and collecting and gathering people.”[25] Later he states, “The task of proclamation is given to the whole Church, and the Church can only fulfill this task because it is formed into one body with Christ by the Holy Spirit.”[26]

So, it must be conceded that this gap between the pulpit and the pew needs to be considered and reduced because, as McClellan points out, this gap has not always been there. Before the Gutenberg press, which brought mass literacy, most of the world was an oral society. “The preacher was not so much the expert, as the bard; rehearsing orally the communal standards and the established body of truth that was ensconced and preserved in the sacred text, but not expressed in terms of precise literate standards.”[27] The community, rather than the preacher, interpreted the sacred text and searched for its truth and meaning.

The benefits of breaking through this disconnect between the pulpit and pew are numerous. Marty states, “There will be more ‘ears to hear’ if the participating people have made suggestions toward the specific message.”[28] Along the same lines, Yoder encourages, “Imagine how attentively people listen to these sermons, knowing that the message has been discerned collaboratively by a roundtable that includes the preacher and members of the congregation.”[29] The importance of this could not be overstated, especially when considering Willhite's comment, "From a communication perspective, however, listeners determine whether the sermon is relevant.”[30] Tearing down the disconnect between pulpit and pew increases the number of ears listening and increases their receptivity and helps to “ease tensions when sermons have dealt with controversy.”[31]

Different Approaches to Collaborative Preaching

There have been multiple different approaches to collaborative preaching. Walkemeyer and Healy state, “The collaborative approach to the preaching ministry of a church can be broadly defined by two models…a preparation team and a preaching team.”[32] Since this project mainly focuses on a "preparation team," this section will provide a brief overview of a "preaching team" and then expand deeper on the different aspects of a preparation team.

There are four main approaches to a preaching team. A partnership approach consists of sharing the preaching responsibilities with two or three preachers. At times they work on the sermon planning together, while other times the Senior Minister will plan the calendar year, and then together, they would decide who would preach what sermon/series. A developing approach places emphasis on mentoring where the primary preacher would mentor another preacher by assigning specific sermons where the mentee can hone his skills.[33] Another approach treats the sermon somewhat like a relay race where a baton is passed. One preacher would present the majority of the message, while the other would provide a summary of the major points and suggests some practical applications.[34] The final approach allows for interviews or testimonies to be shared within the worship service. Some preachers strategically utilize personal interviews to reinforce their main point or add an illustration or application to their teaching.[35]

Regarding preparation teams, according to John McClure, collaborative preaching was first introduced in American churches in 1963 with Browne Barr's book, Parish Back Talk.[36] Barr's approach, which he called "sermon seminar," consisted of posting the following Sunday's text in the announcement section of the Sunday's calendar. Then on Wednesday, the entire congregation is invited to come and discuss the text. While only a small number comes, it is still a significant remnant of the church. To prepare for the Wednesday meeting, “Members of the group might prepare for the meetings by reading commentaries and by bringing with them various translations of the Bible, plus their own questions, ideas, and personal needs.”[37] At the meeting, the group would break into four or five small groups consisting of eight to ten people who discuss the passage for forty minutes. The preacher would sit in on one group but later get “spontaneous reports from the other groups.”[38] Those who could not make it for the Wednesday meeting repeated this process the following day at a breakfast meeting. For regular participants who still could not make either meeting, they would often send in their thoughts by letter. All this feedback is then used to prepare the sermon for Sunday.

Wardlaw described David Landry's sermon preparation in which each week, five different small groups in the congregation meet to discuss the passage for the sermon two weeks away. At times Landry is at the meetings, but at other times he is there only through writing exegetical notes or ten minutes worth of insights on an audio cassette. Others who did not participate in these groups still studied the passage and read Landry's study notes in the weekly newsletter and scribbled down their suggestions and placed them in a special sermon box in the vestibule. Landry may have used some insights and not others, but his sermon always contained his style and convictions.[39]

John McClure referred to his collaborative approach to preaching as the “roundtable.” This consisted of having a variety of members giving their interpretive voice on what the passage means to us today.[40] To keep fresh ideas and to make sure to stay away from an “in-group” of interpreters forming, the members of the roundtable would “commit to attend for only six to ten weeks.”[41]

In, The Homiletic of All Believers, Wesley describes a similar approach where the pastor leads conversations with congregational members and then gathers that information and uses it to shape his sermon; he calls it “conversational preaching.”[42] He also understands that not all participants will be able to exegete or fully understand the text, “but they can do theology, and they can, out of their own process of making meaning in and of the world, proclaim their perspective on/from the Christian faith authentically and meaningfully.”[43]

Doug Pagitt calls his approach “progressional dialogue," which takes several forms at Solomon's Porch, the church he pastors. First, it includes having a Bible study on Tuesday night, where he looks over the upcoming sermon with some congregational members. This conversation goes something like this:

I say something that causes another person to think something she hadn’t thought before. In response she says something that causes a third person to make a comment he wouldn’t normally have made without the benefit of the second person's statement. In turn I think something I wouldn’t have thought without hearing the comments made by the other two. So now we’ve all ended up in a place we couldn’t have come to without the input we received from each other. In a real way the conversation has progressed.[44]

The second form Pagitt’s “progressional dialogue" takes is the weekly open discussion that take place after the sermon. He allows for a ten-minute discussion to invite people to “share their ideas, input, and thoughts about what's been said.”[45] He places a high emphasis on the preacher’s ability to listen.

Bob Russell's experience with collaborative preaching began with two other ministers collaborating over their upcoming Easter series. This led to twelve to fifteen years of collaboration between himself and another minister, where each Sunday, they would preach the same sermon. He discovered that this collaboration worked best when it is with someone who has a similar preaching style and outline formation. This small group expanded to four to five other ministers, which became a little more cumbersome but beneficial as long as there was an acknowledged leader. When the group expanded further to eight to ten, this became too cumbersome with too many people not on the same page, and the group had to be dissolved.[46]

Along with the books and articles written about collaborative preaching, several Doctor of Ministry projects have focused on this subject over recent years, narrowing in on different aspects. Maurice Brown attacks the myth that “revelation has been given to the pastor, and to him or her alone,”[47] by forming a collaborative preaching group from within the church to address all its members' needs through active participation.[48] Coming from an Adventist Church background, he became more and more concerned about the monolithic nature of their sermons and the exclusivity or “closed door” process of the preacher’s interpretation.[49] He proposed that having collaboration between the preacher and laity, where both come to the table together as equals willing to give and receive, to share and learn, would be a better way of meeting the needs of the congregation.

Walter implemented and evaluated a sermon preparation system that utilized local membership with online tools and face-to-face meetings to strengthen the sermon and make for “a more meaningful and lasting impact on the membership as they listen.”[50] He did this by forming a team of nine people who met for eight weeks to assist in developing a four-part sermon series. He concluded that the project did produce better than normal sermons but conceded that the model he used was too intense to make it a permanent part of the sermon preparation process.

Burris's 2006 project focused on the Sunday morning sermon moving from "an individual monologue to a communal interaction," and how experiencing the text before the sermon, through reading, meditating, and prayer, enhanced hearing of the sermon.[51] Regarding the benefits of a communal interaction, he discovered that many times through the course of the project, participants “expressed thoughts, insights, or ideas that I had not considered. Many of them were excellent; some were brilliant.”[52] He also noticed a notable difference in how the participants heard the sermon since they felt “responsible for what was preached on Sundays.”[53] Even those who were not participants listened to the sermon differently because they felt like the sermon was shaped, at least in part, by those who are similar to them and who represent them.[54]

Stephen Teel found himself within a church on the verge of splitting, so he concentrated on how collaborative preaching can enhance the unity of the church when the generational gaps are pulling it apart.[55] Following but adapting John McClure’s roundtable approach, he chose two people from each of the four generations. He discovered that the roundtable model did have a positive impact on bonding the four generations together. This was seen in the evaluation responses by the participants. When asked to rate the following statement on a scale from 0 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree), “The roundtable allowed me the opportunity to voice my generational perspective and understand those of the other generations,” the average response from all members was a 10.[56] This result was also true for the statement, “The roundtable aided a sense of unity among the participants.”[57]

Team Dynamics

McClure emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between brainstorming and sermon preparation. He states, “The group’s only task is to brainstorm: to reflect honestly and candidly on the biblical text in relation to their understandings of God, the Christian tradition, their own experience and the mission of their congregation.”[58] In the same way, Barr states, “Though the writing of the sermon remains the minister’s task alone, his soundings of the text are amplified as parishioners share what the passage evokes for them.”[59] The preacher will take those brainstorming ideas and utilize them in sermon preparation, but the point of the team meeting is not to prepare the sermon, but rather to gather resources to supplement the preacher's sermon preparation material.

McClure also points out the importance of understanding the difference between collaboration and consultation.

Collaboration is not the same as consultation. It is not using the insights of others to shore up the preacher’s homiletical messages. Collaboration means that others may, indeed, have something to teach the preacher, since there is no way that the preacher can sit where they sit. Another person’s reading of the gospel may transform the preacher’s interpretation entirely. When preachers have interacted with these interpretations, they may find themselves in the pulpit on Sunday morning proclaiming a very different Word that they otherwise could have expected.[60]

This is a vital part of the brainstorming process. If the preacher goes into the meeting with the idea that he knows all the information the team could supply, he will miss not only the point of the team but also the fruits of the team’s labor.

Along the same line, one of the most challenging tasks for seminary educated preachers is to be patient. It is hard to keep the suspicions that interpretations are "wrong" from getting in the way of listening to others. There may be a constant struggle to avoid importing topics and agendas from "the experts" to turn a conversation in an "appropriate" direction. It takes effort to appreciate and deepen another person's interpretation of the Bible and of life.[61]

In forming a team, guidelines become necessary to avoid the risk of creating a team that consists of members who are much like the head of the team, i.e., the preacher. These guidelines comprise the ideal of diversity in its members. They include, but are not limited to, the age range, season of life, using congregants or outsiders, and the size of the team. Utilizing guidelines for the formation of a diverse collaborative team enables the sermon preparation to impact the congregation at a deeper level.

Age range should include young adults and elderly. This allows the assurance that “It will be filled with people who don’t think like you, who aren’t in the same season of life as you, and who have different values from yours.”[62] Allowing for a range in age ensures that the past and present values are included in the sermon preparation, as well as seasons of life and thought patterns that are impacted by past and current cultures. 

Jernigan also lists four areas of diversity that every sermon team needs, diversity among the sexes, ages, political views, and theological opinions (liberal or conservative).[63] The current culture in which this researcher finds himself, is fueled politically and theologically. Allowing each side to participate in sermon preparation constructively gives ground to reaching each side with the gospel of Christ, rather than unwittingly alienating one. Yoder states, “Ideally, the group responsible for planning worship should include women and men who span the spectrum of… education, occupation, and spiritual maturity.”[64] Including new Christians with seasoned veterans of the faith allows each stage to be addressed and ensures that the sermon is not filled with meat or milk, but a mixture of both (Hebrews 5:12-14). Diversity within education and occupation in the members makes allowance for differing perspectives on Scriptures. This diversity allows the bridging of the gap to know how to address those of academic standing with those who are less educated.

Concerning the team size, Bob Russell states that a group of eight is beginning to reach a level where it becomes unmanageable. This results in too much input, and it becomes challenging to direct productive conversations.[65] Thus, ideally, a team will consist of eight or less, including the preacher. The collaborative group, according to McClure, should meet weekly to address the upcoming sermon.[66]

McClure suggests that the team should change regularly, at least every four months. His model intentionally rotates team members to provide the broadest congregational involvement. Along with this change, he recommends including persons who are not church members but live in the surrounding community to get their perspective and see how they perceive the church and her ministries.[67] McClure frames this idea by stating, “From time to time, include persons who are not church members, may not even be Christians, but live or work in the surrounding community, and perceive the church and its ministry from the outside.”[68]

Yoder proposes, “Each congregation is a small culture, a subculture within the larger society.”[69] Therefore, it is prudent to include those in the culture around us to reach the lost and broken more effectively. McClure encourages the roundtable team to place a timeline on achieving this goal. He states that after about a year of getting this process going, the roundtable can begin to include those beyond the congregation. This might involve nonchurch members - those in the neighborhood who perceive the church and its mission from the outside, recipients of church aid, or nonchurched friends or relatives.[70]

Kent Walkemeyer points out that some preachers “utilize an existing group, such as a men’s Bible study.”[71] However, the team is formed, Walkemeyer continues, the primary challenge to team dynamics is to develop trust among team members.[72] It is important that trust be built through “time, vulnerability, and dedication to a common goal.”[73] Building trust within the group allows for greater transparency, courage, and intimacy which broadens the horizon of the preparation of sermons. This allows the group members to relate more to the sermons, take ownership of their involvement, and spur them on to further develop their spiritual walk.

Another important aspect within team dynamics is to differentiate between a group and a team. Pearson stresses, “It is imperative that a true team be understood because many have had poor experiences with a so-called team that really was just a group.”[74] To illustrate the difference between a true team and a group, he describes ten basketball players gathering on a court to play. They may pass it to one another, shoot, and even compete, but it is not until they break into two teams of five and “have a goal of playing by a certain set of rules in order to make more baskets than the other group,”[75] does the group become a team. The main difference between the two is that a team depends on one another to accomplish a specific goal and the members of that team are expected to do their part, while a group may have a goal, but the dependence on one another is missing.

Walkemeyer lists three questions that must be answered regarding teams: who will be on the team, how will the team work together, and how will the team develop trust?[76] Concerning the first question, the answer can be found in the above paragraphs. About the second question, Walkemeyer states that the team should be arranged in order to maximize each person’s strengths.[77] By building upon one another's strength, a team can cooperatively bring about maximum impact. Accomplishing this allows mutual respect to flourish and effectively utilizes each member to work toward the common goal.

The third question addresses the primary challenge to team dynamics regardless of how the team is formed: to develop trust among team members.[78] An expert in the area of teams, Patrick Lencioni, states, “Trust lies at the heart of a functioning, cohesive team. Without it, teamwork is all but impossible.”[79] So, how is trust built? It is more art than science. Those who collaborate testify that trust is built in at least three ways: time, vulnerability, and dedication to a common goal.[80] When a team is committed to spending time together and willing to build trust through vulnerability, the team can successfully work toward a common purpose.[81]

Develop Better Listening

Listening is a crucial ingredient to healthy dialogue. Preachers who authentically seek the input of others, listen attentively, and practice genuine dialogue increase their effectiveness as communicators. As a result, congregants will develop a deeper interest in hearing the final sermon since they contributed to it.[82] However, it could be stated that preachers tend to overlook listening due to identifying that task as the parishioner’s duty during the proclamation of the Word rather than their own.[83] While there have been numerous students in seminaries who express a desire to improve congregational listening and to involve laity in the preaching event,[84] pastors often overlook the importance of their listening ability. Pagitt also suggests:

For nearly all trained preachers, the skill of listening to the congregation is secondary to listening to the text and interpreting it. Just as medical schools have gone to great lengths in recent years to be sure their students know not only medicine and anatomy but also how to engage in the lives of their patients, so does the pastoral field need to expand to include the skills needed to understand the contexts in which people hear and experience the things of God.[85]

Jernigan states that we can easily fall into developing “a love of being the person that is listened to, rather than a person listening to others.”[86] Those engaged in the work of ministry are in great danger of developing a chronic non-listening behavior.[87] If the laity imitated the preaching they hear weekly, they would go out proclaiming to someone else and moralizing or abusing a captive audience with their own personal stories. They would neglect to listen to the situation or to the person with whom they are communicating. This would be due to the numerous times the preaching they heard was a model of "monological nonlistening.”[88] Rather than focusing on ways of becoming better listeners, these types of preachers focus on being the ones to whom people listen. Even listening to another preacher has proven hard for this researcher due to the preoccupation of finding ways in which the sermon could be improved in order to reach the congregation more efficiently.

Improving the preacher’s listening skills seems to hold greater promise for renewing the vitality of preaching.[89] Jernigan continued in declaring, “Listening is how we fill our personal tanks so we have plenty by the time that others have come to hear us.”[90] Dialogue consists of two sides, listening and speaking. The preacher must be purposeful in fulfilling both sides without neglecting either.

The listening skill of preachers is reinforced when one realizes the more the pastor interacts with and listens to his congregation, the more he will be able to provide different elements within the sermon to engage a wider audience. The book, Listening to Listeners: Homiletical Case Studies, is the first volume in a four-volume series funded by the Lilly Endowment grant to seek out and identify elements in preaching that engage or disengage congregations. Over 260 laypeople in twenty-eight different congregations were interviewed. One thing they discovered during a group interview was the “challenge that faces nearly every preacher in a larger way on Sunday morning: the diversity of qualities that people in a single congregation find engaging and not engaging.”[91] In other words, no single method or message will engage the entire assembly. Suppose the preacher is not open to listening to the congregation. In that case, he will never know what elements are engaging or disengaging, nor how to be intentional about sprinkling multiple elements throughout the preaching calendar to engage a wider audience.

Benefits of Collaborative Preaching

Teamwork

Teamwork offers additional time and mental resources, strengthens creativity, and also counteracts pastoral isolation, while simultaneously allowing the preacher to work from areas of his giftedness and personal calling.[92] While making use of a brainstorming team, the preacher employs additional mental resources provided by the team members. Preachers who work by themselves are limited to their own resources and those accessible to them. Although resources grow hourly and God's Spirit empowers mental strength and boosts creative energy, individuals are limited by their capacities of time.[93] Taking advantage of the team approach allows time to be managed more productively as several people work together for the common goal of exegesis. This allows the discussion to flow when a blank page is staring back, allowing the team's diversity to help reach the diversity found within the congregation.[94]

The solo model expresses a weakness in that the preacher communicates best to those who share the preacher’s learning style, rather than to the whole congregation. Utilizing a team allows for different teaching styles which engage the congregation's broader range of learning styles. Within the brainstorming team model, a support team helps the preacher communicate to a broader range of listeners. The entire congregation benefits if the preacher commits himself to becoming a more effective communicator who is open to receiving input from the rest of the team.[95] Fred Craddock reminds us that “how one communicates is a theological commentary on the minister’s view of the ministry.”[96] Methods communicate the preacher's theology as clearly as the preacher’s messages.

An essential strength of the team model is the possibility of equipping others within the congregation to strengthen their gifts and fulfill their vocations.[97] While aiding the preacher in the preparation process, the team members simultaneously develop their ministry strengths. While leadership development is difficult work, consumes time, and requires healthy relationship skills, the collaborative model of preaching provides a platform which encourages a commitment to developing and strengthening the leadership within the local church.[98]

Discipleship

A fruitful by-product of collaboration is the opportunity for discipleship. Involving others in a roundtable process allows members to grapple with the gospel and with each other, creating an opportunity for the Word to become preachable and merges the church and the world in solidarity and hope.[99] This offers a theological balance and an expansive vision of the character of God and his activity.[100] It also corrects an error John D. Cobb sees within the twenty-first-century church, which is the turning over of theology to the universities creating a break between theology and church life.[101]

Another part of discipleship is to encourage and equip congregational members. Encouraging involvement within the preaching process can help foster participation in other ministries located inside or outside the church.[102] Doug Pagitt says, “When people feel their thoughts are taken seriously in one context, they will carry that confidence into other contexts.”[103] The confidence and skills they gain in one area can strengthen them in other areas as well.

One of the most effective ways to empower congregants for ministry is to take advantage of collaborative forms of leadership and preaching.[104] Not only will this aid in the empowerment of the congregation, but it also helps the members to understand the task of preaching, enhancing their abilities as listeners.[105] Yoder states that “collaboration pays rich dividends for the spiritual life of the congregation, our sense of community, and our capacity to respond to the challenges of worship in faith and obedience.”[106]

Uses More of the Body

Committing to the collaborative model of preaching reminds the whole body that God's Spirit dwells within and among his people, that Scripture belongs to the community and not exclusively to scholars, and that God speaks through more than one vessel in the body of Christ.[107] Pagitt describes his pre-sermon dialogue group, consisting of eight to twenty members, meeting each Tuesday as they embark on studying Scripture for the upcoming sermon, exploring questions and issues of which the preacher may not have been aware.[108] While practicing the collaborative model, Pagitt sets an example of how to use those within the body and encourages pastors to interact with the community the way they interact with their commentaries.

Conversely, not utilizing the whole of the body of Christ is a disservice to the whole. Anabaptists Yoder, Kropf, and Slough claim that “when worship is not a collaborative ministry, the body of Christ suffers. We become deformed without the creative insights, unique biblical and theological perspectives, and diverse life experiences of the members of the body.”[109]

Relationship Between Speaker and Hearers

Collaborative preaching aids the preacher in knowing the congregants more intimately, allowing the sermons to become personal and connect the speaker to the listeners. Yoder declares that a benefit “of this collaborative process is that pastors come to know members of the congregation more deeply.”[110] Without an intimate relationship developed through trust, the preacher finds himself at a significant disadvantage when preparing the weekly sermon. Martin Marty says it in this way: “Joint study of a text will help the minister find what the commentaries overlooked: the ties to the lives of people in the year, the week, almost the hour of preaching.”[111] How then would a preacher know how to relate the sermon to the local congregation without this method, since “No one can know everything about the body and its members who gather for worship”?[112] Developing relationships with the hearers allows for a personalized sermon that connects with its listeners.

[1] Allen O. Wesley, The Homiletic of All Believers: A Conversational Approach to Proclamation and Preaching, 4.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid., 17.

[6] Ibid., 4.

[7] Fred B. Craddock, As One Without Authority, (St Louis: Chalice Press, 2001), 14.

[8] John V. Tornfelt, 2012, “Preaching with Authority When You Don’t Have It,” 43.

[9] Kent Walkemeyer and Tara Healy, “Evaluating Collaborative Approaches to Preparing and Delivering Sermons,” 10.

[10] Ibid., 1.

[11] Ibid., 11.

[12] John S. McClure, The Roundtable Pulpit: Where Leadership and Preaching Meet, (Nashville: Abingdon, 1995), 7.

[13] Dave McClellan, “The Unfinished Sermon: Involving the Body in Preparation and Delivery,” (Presented at Evangelical Homiletics Society, Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2009), 116.

[14] Lucy Atkinson Rose, Sharing the Word: Preaching in the Roundtable Church, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 13.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Dave McClellan, “The Unfinished Sermon: Involving the Body in Preparation and Delivery,” 113.

[17] Lucy Atkinson Rose, Sharing the Word: Preaching in the Roundtable Church, 21.

[18] Allen O. Wesley, The Homiletic of All Believers: A Conversational Approach to Proclamation and Preaching, 12.

[19] Lucy Atkinson Rose, Sharing the Word: Preaching in the Roundtable Church, 37.

[20] Ibid.

[21] Allen O. Wesley, The Homiletic of All Believers: A Conversational Approach to Proclamation and Preaching, 12.

[22] Lucy Atkinson Rose, Sharing the Word: Preaching in the Roundtable Church, 59.

[23] Ibid., 78.

[24] Ibid., 89-90.

[25] Dietrich Ritschl, A Theology of Proclamation, (Richmond: John Knox Press, 1960), 22.

[26] Ibid., 33.

[27] Dave McClellan, “The Unfinished Sermon: Involving the Body in Preparation and Delivery,” 116.

[28] Martin E. Marty, The Word: People Participating in Preaching, (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1984), 109.

[29] June Alliman Yoder, Marlene Kropf, and Rebecca Slough, Preparing Sunday Dinner: A Collaborative Approach to Worship and Preaching, 143.

[30] Keith Willhite, Preaching with Relevance: Without Dumbing Down, (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publication, 2001), 21-22.

[31] Browne Barr and Mary Eakin, The Ministering Congregation, (Philadelphia: Pilgrim Press Book, 1972), 80-81:

[32] Kent Walkemeyer and Tara Healy, “Evaluating Collaborative Approaches to Preparing and Delivering Sermons,” 2.

[33] Ibid., 4.

[34] Ibid.

[35] Ibid.

[36] John S. McClure, The Roundtable Pulpit: Where Leadership and Preaching Meet, 7.

[37] Browne Barr and Mary Eakin, The Ministering Congregation, 76-77.

[38] Browne Barr, Parish Back Talk, (New York: Abingdon, 1963), 77.

[39] Don M. Wardlaw, “Preaching as the Interface of Two Social Worlds: The Congregation as Corporate Agent in the Act of Preaching.” In Preaching as a Social Act: Theology and Practice, edited by Arthur Van Seters, (Nashville: Abingdon, 1988), 55-56.

[40] John S. McClure, The Roundtable Pulpit: Where Leadership and Preaching Meet, 24.

[41] John S. McClure, “Collaborative Preaching from the Margins,” Journal for Preachers 19, no. 4 (Pentecost, 1996), 38.

[42] Allen O. Wesley, The Homiletic of All Believers: A Conversational Approach to Proclamation and Preaching, 39.

[43] Ibid., 20.

[44] Doug Pagitt, Preaching Re-Imagined: The Role of the Sermon in Communities of Faith, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2005), 23-24.

[45] Ibid., 24.

[46] Bob Russell, 2019, Interview by author, Vallonia, December 11, 2019.

[47] Maurice Brown, “Collaborative Preaching and Congregational Response in the Edmonton Seventh-Day Adventist Church,” 1.

[48] Ibid., 3.

[49] Ibid., 10, 15.

[50] Roger Walter, “A Collaborative Sermon Preparation Team at the Seventh-day Adventist Community Church of Vancouver, WA,” (D.Min. diss., Andrews University, 2012), 3.

[51] Allen Burris, “Sermon Preparation for Hearers: A Collaborative Approach to Preaching in the Mitchell Church of Christ,” (D.Min. diss., Abilene Christian University, 2006), 12.

[52] Ibid., 69.

[53] Ibid., 71.

[54] Ibid., 72.

[55] Stephen E. Teel, “Preaching in a Multi-Generational Church: How Collaborative preaching Can Be Used to Enhance the Unity for the Church.” (D.Min. diss., Harding University, 2010), 1.

[56] Ibid., 121.

[57] Ibid., 122.

[58] John S. McClure, The Roundtable Pulpit: Where Leadership and Preaching Meet, 64.

[59] Browne Barr and Mary Eakin, The Ministering Congregation, 76.

[60] John S. McClure, The Roundtable Pulpit: Where Leadership and Preaching Meet, 23.

[61] John S. McClure, “Collaborative Preaching from the Margins,” 39.

[62] Jeremy Jernigan, Crowdsourcing the Message: Engaging People in the Church for Powerful and Effective Teaching to the Church, (CreateSpace Independent Publishing, 2012), 162.

[63] Ibid.

[64] June Alliman Yoder, Marlene Kropf, and Rebecca Slough, Preparing Sunday Dinner: A Collaborative Approach to Worship and Preaching, 45.

[65] Bob Russell, 2019, Interview by author, Vallonia, December 11, 2019.

[66] John S. McClure, The Roundtable Pulpit: Where Leadership and Preaching Meet, 61.

[67] Ibid.

[68] Ibid., 62.

[69] June Alliman Yoder, Marlene Kropf, and Rebecca Slough, Preparing Sunday Dinner: A Collaborative Approach to Worship and Preaching, 43.

[70] John S. McClure, “Collaborative Preaching from the Margins,” 38

[71] Kent Walkemeyer, “Identifying and Overcoming Obstacles to Collaborative Preaching,” 4.

[72] Ibid.

[73] Ibid.

[74] Calvin F. Pearson, “Collaborative Sermon Preparation Teams,” 5.

[75] Ibid.

[76] Kent Walkemeyer, “Identifying and Overcoming Obstacles to Collaborative Preaching,” 3.

[77] Ibid., 5.

[78] Ibid., 4.

[79] Patrick Lencioni, The Five Dysfunctions of a Team, (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2002), 195.

[80] Kent Walkemeyer, “Identifying and Overcoming Obstacles to Collaborative Preaching,” 4.

[81] Ibid., 5.

[82] Kent Walkemeyer and Tara Healy, “Evaluating Collaborative Approaches to Preparing and Delivering Sermons,” 9-10.

[83] Harold A. Brack, “Good Preachers Are Good Listeners,” Quarterly Review 3, no. 1, (Spr 1983): 86.

[84] Ibid.

[85] Doug Pagitt, Preaching Re-Imagined: The Role of the Sermon in Communities of Faith, 40-41.

[86] Jeremy Jernigan, Crowdsourcing the Message: Engaging People in the Church for Powerful and Effective Teaching to the Church, 92.

[87] Harold A. Brack, “Good Preachers Are Good Listeners,” 87.

[88] Ibid., 86.

[89] Ibid.

[90] Jeremy Jernigan, Crowdsourcing the Message: Engaging People in the Church for Powerful and Effective Teaching to the Church, 93.

[91] John S. McClure, Listening to Listeners: Homiletical Case Studies, (St. Louis: Chalice Press, 2004), 121.

[92] Kent Walkemeyer and Tara Healy, “Evaluating Collaborative Approaches to Preparing and Delivering Sermons,” 7.

[93] Ibid.

[94] Adapted from a quote from Dr. Joe Grana, who wrote the introduction to Jeremy Jernigan's book Crowd Sourcing the Message, 9.

[95] Ibid., 9.

[96] Fred B. Craddock, As One Without Authority, 44.

[97] Kent Walkemeyer and Tara Healy, “Evaluating Collaborative Approaches to Preparing and Delivering Sermons,” 8.

[98] Ibid., 9.

[99] John S. McClure, The Roundtable Pulpit: Where Leadership and Preaching Meet, 15.

[100] June Alliman Yoder, Marlene Kropf, and Rebecca Slough, Preparing Sunday Dinner: A Collaborative Approach to Worship and Preaching, 191.

[101] John B. Cobb Jr., Reclaiming the Church: Where the Mainline Church Went Wrong and What to Do about It, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 22-31.

[102] Ibid., 10.

[103] Doug Pagitt, Preaching Re-Imagined: The Role of the Sermon in Communities of Faith, 173.

[104] John S. McClure, The Roundtable Pulpit: Where Leadership and Preaching Meet, 9.

[105] June Alliman Yoder, Marlene Kropf, and Rebecca Slough, Preparing Sunday Dinner: A Collaborative Approach to Worship and Preaching, 142.

[106] Ibid., 187.

[107] Kent Walkemeyer, “Identifying and Overcoming Obstacles to Collaborative Preaching,” 2.

[108] Doug Pagitt, Preaching Re-Imagined: The Role of the Sermon in Communities of Faith, 24, 185-189.

[109] June Alliman Yoder, Marlene Kropf, and Rebecca Slough, Preparing Sunday Dinner: A Collaborative Approach to Worship and Preaching, 15.

[110] Ibid., 142.

[111] Martin E. Marty, The Word: People Participating in Preaching, 108.

[112] June Alliman Yoder, Marlene Kropf, and Rebecca Slough, Preparing Sunday Dinner: A Collaborative Approach to Worship and Preaching, 62.