INTRODUCTION
Doug Pagitt serves as the pastor of Solomon’s Porch in Minneapolis, MN. He stands as a leader in the Emergent Church, and holds too many of the same beliefs and ideologies as Brian McLaren. In his book, Preaching Re-Imagined, he sets forth an approach to preaching called progressional dialogue. Pagitt, like McLaren and others in the Emergent Church, wants to have a “conversation,” instead of proclaiming the truths found in Scripture. This review presents the preaching methodology of Doug Pagitt, and analyzes its strengths and weaknesses.
PAGITT’S PREACHING METHODOLOGY
Doug Pagitt sees himself as a pastor who, “Seeks to live in a community of people who are living out the hopes and aspirations of God in the world.” He never attempts to define what the “hopes and aspirations of God” are, but he wants himself and his church to seek them. He declares that his calling as a preacher is not a high calling, but is one that he continually redefines. He redefines it by stating:
I find myself wanting to live life with the people of my community where I can preach-along with the other preachers of our community-but not allow that to become an act of speech making. Instead I want it to be a living interaction of the story of God and the story of our community being connected by our truth telling, our vulnerability, and our open minds, ears, and eyes-all brought together by the active work of the Spirit of God as we “let the message of Christ dwell among (us) richly as (we) teach and admonish one another with all wisdom through psalms, hymns, and songs from the Spirit, singing to God with gratitude in our hearts” (Colossians 3:16).
Pagitt redefines preaching by removing all of its authority, and replacing it with relativistic conversation. He does not think the church should be preaching centers, instead he wants people to live as kingdom-of-God Horticulturalist. For Pagitt preaching is, “A means by which we extend God’s dreams, hopes, and agenda in the world.” The “extending of God’s dreams, hopes, and agendas in the world” occurs through what he calls progressional dialogue.
In Pagitts’s mind traditional preaching does not work because it does not involve both the speecher and those who listen. In response to speeching Pagitt proposes progressional dialogue. He defines progressional dialogue when he writes, “Speeching stands in contrast to what I call progressional dialogue, where the content of the presentation is established in the context of a healthy relationship between the presenter and the listeners, and substantive changes in the content are then created as a result of this relationship.” He explains how this process operates by writing:
It works 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.
Pagitt wants to have a corporate-unguided conversation, where everything goes. Anyone can stand up and say anything without any oversight.
Pagitt’s methodology presses implication over application. He comments, “The very nature of speeching-one person choosing, researching, and preparing the content of the speech-makes it impossible for our speeches to apply to anyone in concrete, meaningful ways.” His answer to this problem is to allow the people participating in the dialogue to make the application for themselves. This implication is, “Birthed in the dance between the story and the lives of the participants in that story.” Pagitt never explains what happens during this dance, or how the implication is birthed during the dance. The implication will somehow spur the participants in the story on to godly living. He declares that it would be arrogant of the preacher to assume that he knows how people should live in the midsts of grief and pain. If the preacher cannot provide helpful insights from Scripture about how to deal with these types of issues, then how can he be pastoral and minister to those people dealing with such issues. By removing the authority of the pastor to apply the text and show people how it impacts their lives, Pagitt removes any ability the pastor has to minister to people in specific ways.
Pagitt attempts to involve as many people as possible in the preparation of the sermon. Because the delivery of the sermon includes many different people, he wants to integrate as many of these people as possible into the preparation process. He writes:
The idea that I can sit alone in front of my computer and see all the complexities of the Bible reeks of arrogance. I need the people of my community to help me find the places that trip them up, the places that confuse them, even the places where they think they understand what’s being said but aren’t sure what to do about it… . Their experiences with the Bible and the story of God are as valid as my own.
For this reason every Tuesday night attendees of Solomon’s Porch have the opportunity to meet with Pagitt for what they call the Bible discussion Group. At these meetings the group will discuss the passage being dialogued about that upcoming Sunday. This Bible discussion group can look very different from week to week depending on the people present and the passage being discussed. This discussion serves as a precursor to the real conversation which will then continue on Sunday in their large worship gathering.
In this methodology the preacher serves two primary roles. First, he or she provides context to the biblical situation. Second, the preacher can share his own take on a particular topic. Pagitt puts it this way:
This is how I see the role of preaching the Bible. The Bible is really good at speaking for herself, but there are times when the other persons in the dialogue don’t know enough about the context and situation to make sense of what they hear. It’s during those points when I insert myself into the conversation to offer clarification. Then there are times when the Bible is finished talking, and it becomes my time to share my take on it.
This quote raises the question: how does the Bible speak for herself, and when do you know she is finished speaking? The preacher does nothing more than provide clarification on context and situations, and then participates as another member of the conversation.
This form of preaching requires all the preachers involved in the conversation to use provisional language. The use of this type of language means that the person speaking uses phrases like, “‘it seems to me’ or ‘this is my take on it’ or ‘from the perspective I have.’” They use this language in order to make people feel comfortable sharing their opinions and feelings on a passage or topic. It also reminds everyone in the group that everyone has their own perspective, and no one’s perspective is better than another’s. Pagitt also says that provisional statements give a person confidence to share their thoughts. He says, “It gives them permission to have confidence in their thoughts as wonderings inspired by God, wonderings deserving of consideration of the whole community.” The use of provisional statements, according to Pagitt, also provides those with opposing viewpoints the opportunity to evaluate what is said, and determine if it fits with their own personal reality.
In Pagitt’s approach to preaching he invites the whole congregation to join in an in depth conversation on the particular passage being addressed. He wants everyone to feel comfortable, and to recognize that no one’s opinion stands above anyone else’s opinion. Even the Bible is viewed as nothing more than a member in the conversation. Everyone is encouraged to use provisional language, and somehow this approach will foster godly living and keep out heresy. Pagitt’s approach has some strengths; however, it has many deficiencies.
STRENGTHS
The strengths of Pagitt’s approach lie mainly in the problems he sees in traditional preaching, and attempts to address with this radical new approach. He points out that speeching can have the unintended consequence of making people feel as though the preacher is the only one who can understand the Bible. This problem does exist in the church, and it should be dealt with appropriately. Preachers should not want their people to think that they cannot effectively read their own Bibles. The answer to this problem is not to remove the act of speeching from the community. Pastors need to find other ways to teach their congregation how to read and interpret their Bible.
Another problem Pagitt attempts to address with his approach is application. He rightly notes that the application found in much of contemporary preaching provides nothing more than vague, general principles that should be universally applied. Again the answer is not to jettison speeching all together, but for preachers to find specific ways in which their passage applies. This specificity can only come if the preacher lives in community with his congregation, and understands their problems and struggles. If this communal aspect exists within a church, then the preacher will be able to provide specific application of a text for his people. He can also show people how to arrive at application on their own. This self-application will come through teaching them how to read their Bibles.
Pagitt also discusses how the preacher can seem distant and disconnected from his audience in traditional preaching. He writes, “No matter the size of the church, speeching often creates an environment in which the pastor remains a removed stranger who gives speeches about God.” Just as in the previous two problems, the answer is not to get rid of speeching. The preacher needs to attempt to overcome this gap between himself and his audience through other means. He needs to make himself available and approachable.
These three issues represent some of the problems to which Pagitt tries to find answers. He does not want his people to think he is the only one who can read the Bible; he wants the Bible to apply to the lives of his audience; and he wants to be involved in the lives of the members of his community. All of these things can be accomplished through other means than simply getting rid of speeching. Many of these attitudes and problems can still exist in a community where progressional dialogue is implemented.
WEAKNESSES
Pagitt’s preaching methodology has some strengths; however, it has many weaknesses. He establishes false dichotomies, misunderstands the priesthood of the believer, does not address issues of heresy, and lowers the Bible to nothing more than a member of the community. These deficiencies, plus many more, make Pagitt’s methodology weak and unstable. This section addresses several of the weaknesses in Pagitt’s approach to preaching.
First, Pagitt establishes several false dichotomies. He establishes a false dichotomy when he talks about wanting to live as a member of his community, and not just play the role of speech maker. He makes it sound as if the pastor must choose between being a member of the community and being a speecher. In his mind these two roles are mutually exclusive. The preacher cannot be both a member in the community and a speech maker. He also implies that the traditional preacher cannot have a healthy relationship with his people. This unhealthy relationship develops because of the authoritative role taken on by the preacher. In Pagitt’s opinion the preacher cannot overcome this role, and should reject speeching. He establishes another false dichotomy when he writes, “Speaching also strips away any chance for people in the congregation to feel known and understood by their pastor.” This claim is unfounded and has no grounding in reality. These false dichotomies require Pagitt to over react to traditional preaching and implement a radical new approach.
Second, not only does Pagitt establish false dichotomies, but he also misunderstands the priesthood of the believer. He states:
The priesthood of all believers was among the greatest contributions of the Reformation and has essentially been ignored in the area of preaching in many of our churches to the point that it could be called an unfunded mandate of the Reformation. It means we recognize the work of the Spirit of God in the lives of every human being, and God’s work can play out in ways that are more meaningful than simply viewing people as a means of fulfilling the church’s agenda. This concept can-and must-include God’s people being the church and leading one another in every area of life together.”
Pagitt wants to claim that the priesthood of all believers means that no single person can stand as an authority figure in the church. This understanding of the priesthood of the believer is wrong on at least two levels. First, this doctrine, as highlighted by the reformers, was used to show the common people that they did not need to go through a priest to gain access to God. Second, the doctrine does not mean no place exists in the church for trained professionals. 1 Timothy 3:1-7 and Titus 1:5-9 both point to the role and need for trained pastors to lead churches. Pagitt uses this doctrine to make people feel comfortable sharing their opinions, sense no one’s opinion stands above anyone else’s.
Third, Pagitt does not address how doctrinal heresies are dealt with in this method. In his description of progressional dialogue he writes, “Speaching stands in contrast to what I call progressional dialogue, where the content of the presentation is established in the context of a healthy relationship between the presenter and the listeners and substantive changes in the content are then created.” The ideal that “substantive changes to the content are then made” raises several questions. If “substantive changes” can be made, how can anything be said for certain? What are these changes being made too. Do the participants change the content of Scripture, or just the content of the message. Pagitt’s description makes it sound as if the content of Scripture can be changed to meet the needs of the people. If this type of change is being made, then that is heresy. Pagitt would not see these changes as heresy. Actually he would not view anything as heresy. In his mind heresy is something said against the church. If something negative is said about the church during the discussion time, then others in the community correct the misunderstanding. This approach does not avoid or deal appropriately with heresy.
Fourth, Pagitt wrongly pronounces that traditional preaching was a product of the enlightenment. He ignores all of the occasions in the gospels and in Acts where the traditional form of preaching is the method used to communicate truth. He tries to point to the conversation between Peter and Cornelius in Acts 10 and say that it supports his progressional dialogue. This conversation most certainly contained content related to the gospel, but nowhere does it support progressional dialogue in the form presented by Pagitt.
Fifth, this preaching methodology reduces the Bible to nothing more than a member of the community. Pagitt asserts, “The Bible ought to live as an authoritative member of our community, one we listen to on all topics of which she speaks.” Relegating the Bible to just another member of the community is disrespectful, heretical, and false. The Bible should stand above the community, and should serve as the guide for how the community interacts with the world. The Bible is much more than just a community member. It is the method by which God has spoken to his people. If it becomes another member of the community, then its instruction can be rejected. This notion places the Bible on the same level as the testimony of people. The Bible has more authority, relevance, and power than anything any person could say about God or their experiences. For this reason alone the Bible stands as more than a community member.
CONCLUSION
Doug Pagitt allows his presuppositions and false dichotomies to drive his preaching methodology. Because he sees flaws in the way traditional preaching establishes a particular relationship with his audience, he wants to jettison speeching all together. Pagitt attempts to address some serious problems facing traditional preaching, but in the end his answers leave much to be desired. Pagitt has a very ambiguous approach to dialogue. If he wants to engage in true conversation, then he needs to actually say something concrete. When he communicates in clear propositional statements what he believes, then the conversation can begin. Until then no conversation can exist of any importance.