Journeys with Tim

The Conversational Sermon

I've got a new idea for the way Sunday morning messages should be handled. The idea is that we should adopt a new format for the Sunday morning message: a conversational method where the main speaker is interviewed (by another pastor perhaps) and not given the task of speaking directly at the congregation.

The Problem
The idea comes out of bordem with the traditional message delivery, where a single person is expected to keep the attention of the entire congregation for 20-30 mintues. It seems there are very few people with the skill sufficent for that. Most people simply don't know how to be that interesting given that kind of time and flexibility. However, isn't it true that almost everyone can be interesting if they're asked the right kinds of questions? When's the last time you thought the best way to understand someone was by asking them to lecture to you for twenty minutes?

My idea is also inspiried by a simple observation about how ideas are presented in popular media. Ever notice that almost all talk shows employ a conversational style? Larry King, C-Span's Booknotes, Charlie Rose, late-night hosts and of course, Oprah have always interviewed their guests rather than having their guests talk directly into the camera.

Maybe producers are on to something. You almost never see a single person talking directly to the camera. (A slight exception are news programs, but they make up for it by showing pictures - when's the last time a news story was reported without video? Another exception is religious programming, but who watches them?) Even talk radio features hosts conversing with callers. And guess what? We all listen.

So I submit that Sunday morning messages start using a conversational style.

The Core Idea
Instead of having a single person talk at, to and for the congregation, have another person interview the main speaker - we could even get real creative and have two speakers. The point would not be to trick the speaker, like some political talk shows, but to get at the heart of what the speaker has to say (like a conference panel discussion). The interviewer would also be able to interact with the speaker by asking follow-up questions. The goal is to mimic a real conversation someone might have over lunch.

Why it'll work:

1. It's far more natural to listen to a conversation than listen to someone talk at, to or for you. The natural give-and-take of a conversation is far more interesting.

2. People think more when they are in the middle of a conversation than when they sit for a lecture. Being at the listening end of a lecture is a recipe for passivity. (BTW, haven't we all heard a million times that the lecture method is the least-desirable method of learning? So why do we still use it?

3. Speakers will be more interesting if there is someone to talk with them than if they speak by themselves. If you had a choice between overhearing a conversation about forgiveness in a cafe or being lectured-to about it a classroom setting, which would you choose? (I rest my case.)

As far as I know no one has seriously tried this, but I want to keep looking.

I wanna start a conversational-message movement. Wanna join?

Posted by Tim at March 9, 2006 02:12 PM