Collaborative Sermons
Church is people. People praying together, worshipping together, studying together, fellowshipping together. That’s Presbyterian churches and emerging churches, both.
And yet, the “together” part seems to come to an abrupt end when it’s time to prepare the weekly sermon. Most pastors I’ve known prepare by locking themselves, alone, in a study with a few tomes of commentary. The most interaction they ever get is with their computer’s spellchecker.
Seriously, I hope I’m exaggerating. I know that many emergent churches are moving away from the sermon altogether as the centerpiece of worship, but I suspect it still plays a part, especially in presbymergent ones. And I also think it still has a valid part to play.
So I’m curious to know what those of you who are in emergent churches, or those striving to become more emergent, do to open up the process of sermon writing. Is the idea of an entire staff, congregation, or community working together to create sermons just a reprehensible, slippery-slope kind of idea? Does it fall into that category of things that must be protected from laypeople at all costs because “we-went-to-seminary-and-they-didn’t?”
I’ve just started reading Doug Pagitt’s “Preaching Re-Imagined” which has a few things to say on the subject, but I find myself wondering…does even he go far enough? And is there such a thing as “too far” in a denomination that claims the “priesthood of all believers?”
Comment by drew on 1 March 2007:
I normally prepare sermons almost by myself. I have a few collaborators (in informal conversation), and other “collaborators” via books, blogs, and other media (although they don’t know it, most of the time).
During the sermon, however, I always leave room for the congregation to participate in one way or another, and that came specifically because Padgitt convicted me. This change has been good for us. I need to grow towards letting people in “on the front end,” but I know that it can and does work.
Comment by Adam Copeland on 1 March 2007:
Padgitt’s book is intersting because he thinks he’s doing something so totally different. Instead, though, I think Padgitt ends up where many in the mainline church have been for years: preaching should always be a communal event, a top-down, I-have-all-the-right-answers approach is not ultimately helpful or healthy. Padgitt seems to be responding to a very conservative model of preaching that he may have been taught. Many current homileticians within the mainline academy have been saying what he’s reaching for for years–and with more weight and depth, in my estimation.
My preaching courses at Columbia Seminary require us to do exegesis with others and outside the confines of the seminary–we were given a list on the first day of class as to where would could take our text for exegesis, homeless shelters, the huge mall, parks, and prisons were on the list.
And Padgitt’s practice of discussing the text with his congregation before he preaches on it is also often highly thought of by some mainliners–heck, Calvin would love it.
Finally, Padgitt’s sermons end up being much more of him and him alone speaking than his book leads the reader to believe. He leaves time for discussion, but still speaks for longer than I’ve ever preached myself.
A book from the mainline perspective that gets at these same issues is Lucy Rose’s “Sharing the Word : Preaching in the Roundtable Church.” I highly recommend it.
Comment by Tom Robinson on 1 March 2007:
All of these thoughts are intriguing, especially for this ‘old guy’ who often wonders if there isn’t a better way. I do sequester myself in my study at home and work on the sermon, and don’t usually have a lot of give-and-take except for the Lectionary group I attend. My preaching style has changed, moving from the pulpit to in front of the communion table, and that has caused me to feel more connected to the people. One of the dreams I have here is opening up the worship and sermon process for others to participate. So hearing how others are doing things differently is a plus, whether you are ‘emerging’ or stuck in the traditional.
Comment by Jim Bonewald on 1 March 2007:
I think there are various degrees in which we can engage in this collaborative process. Part of the issue is how do you move along a congregation with almost no collaborative experience?
I wrote a post about this issue on my blog remarking on a very interesting article I read in the most recent Congregations Magazine published by the Alban Institure.
There is some additional and beneficial discussion in the comments. The post is:
http://www.thechurchgeek.com/archives/281
Comment by Adam Walker Cleaveland on 1 March 2007:
Neal - looks like you may have stirred up some good conversation.
Very nice. While Presbymergent folks have been a little quiet recently, start talking about our sermon and here the comments come
I love it.
Adam Copeland: I’ve heard this critique of Pagitt before - that he isn’t saying anything new…and perhaps he could do a bit of a better job of letting us know that he’s aware of those (like Lucy Rose and John McClure)…but still - it’s not the same old stuff for most of the folks who are hearing from Pagitt.
This is new, new stuff for many of the more evangelical folks who are reading this stuff from Pagitt - folks who have never, nor probably will ever, hear of Rose and/or McClure. So I get that critique - it just doesn’t do much for me.
Neal - I love the idea of collaborative preaching…think it’s great. And I think that perhaps many mainline folks have been for this idea of communal preaching for a long time. But how many churches actually do something to try and make it happen? Mainline churches? I’d guess near to none actually do things like meet in groups to discuss the sermon, or host online discussions for creating ideas that will eventually become the substance of the sermon. What about tag-team preaching? What about letting Bob the Elder get up and share his insight? No, that all sounds a bit too messy to me. Definitely not decently and in order…
So what can we do? How can we allow this communal preaching “theory” to actually become practice in our “presbymergent” churches? That IS the question.
Comment by Adam Walker Cleaveland on 1 March 2007:
Oh and by the way folks…Pagitt.
Pagitt.
Not Padgitt.
Comment by Tom Robinson on 1 March 2007:
Adam’s comment about collaborative preaching got me to thinking - at this church we have a retreat every year, and this last fall we talked about spiritual gifts. Two people had wonderful refelctions on that event, and they shared those during a sermon not long after the retreat. For some in the ocngregation, it didn’t seem to fit (hey, can’t please everybody). But most people I talked to felt it was wonderful. I thought it was outstanding - I was surprised at how well the relfections of the people fit into my earlier thoughts in the sermon. Small steps, but we need to keep going to involve more people in the beautiful act of preaching.
Comment by drew on 1 March 2007:
My “extra mainline” congregation has gotten used to me engaging them in the sermon, and having us work together. Sure, I’m still the driver (and to be honest, like doing so), but they really like sharing together. The first time I did it, it scared them and me to death, but now we like it. I guess I’m filing the collaborative thing under the “Nothin’ to it, but to do it” file.
AND, btw, I grew up in a conservative church and attended a conservative seminary, and Pagitt’s ideas were new to me (but TOTALLY made sense).
Comment by Adam Copeland on 1 March 2007:
Thanks for the conversation, folks.
Adam Walker Cleaveland: I somewhat see your point that if people are reading Pagitt after not reading other stuff, then some of his ideas really are new and relevant.
Even so, I think Pagitt would have done well to engage the mainline/academy in the conversation. I think it was Tony Jones who, when introducing Pagitt at the Emergent/s Conference said something like, “Doug Pagitt is blissfully unencumbered by the academy.” (That is not a direct quote.) Recall also, Pagitt’s response that he had no idea anyone had considered body prayer before he published a book on it. Call me old-fashioned, but I think the academy has much to offer–for example, many thoughtful books have been written on conversational preaching and I don’t think it’s asking too much for someone to read what else has been published before publishing more. In fact, isn’t bringing others into the conversation what emergent is about? It is hubris to claim “a new way of thinking” as Pagitt does in “Preaching Re-Imagined” if the way is not really new, but a lesser permutation of work done 15 years ago.
On a different note, all preachers must struggle with the reformed understanding of the sermon as the word. I think this concept calls preachers to use varied resources in preparing sermons, but it also brings up interesting questions as to how to understand conversation during the sermon. Certainly, we need to expand some of Calvin’s definition of the word–as Barth has done–but, again, let’s do it thoughtfully and not pretend like we’re the first to ever have these thoughts.
Thanks for the spelling correction.
Comment by RPS on 1 March 2007:
Neal, we talk about it (collabrative / dialogue etc.) but I’m agreeing with Adam (W.C.) that in reality it doesn’t happen all that often. We use dialogue every week here at The Portico and I often get acused of being “not reformed” because I’m not giving a speech (speeching as Pagitt calls it.)
Maybe those younger than I am are more exposed to this in seminary (Princeton, ‘84) but this idea was completely anathema in my training, and still is considered such by many of my generation. My case in point is an illustration in Homilectics Journal only a couple of years ago (written I think by Henry Brinton, PC pastor in VA.) His point was the story of a young man who preached his sermon and then at the end (not in the middle but at the end) a little old lady stood up and “dared to talk back!!!” (Emphasis in the original.) The statement itself at least points to a folkway in our culture (if not a more codified more’ in how we approach preaching as the “preached word.”
I’ve been able to learn dialogue preaching (it’s much harder than the crutch of notes or manuscript) because we didn’t have any tradition to alter. But what I’ve experienced from both the dialogue in worship as well as the collabrative way our “journey group” works on exegesis together the week before (a group open to anyone who wants to be involved in the sermon creation process)is that the “spoken and interpreted word” becomes truly a communal process.
When an 11 year old kid (who is in worship because we don’t have any kind of segregation “childrens program”) stops me in the middle and asks the ONE question that makes the whole point? That’s experiencing the Spirit’s presence in ways I’m not sure would ever happen if: (1) that kid didn’t have permission to engage, (2) the preacher was smart enough to let the congregation help “steer” the process, and (3) we weren’t willing to push the envelope on who “owns” the sermon in worship.
Yes, it’s important.
And yes, I think Pagitt has some good points to make, whether we agree or think they are new or not — let’s remember his journey hasn’t been the same as ours — and yes, his ego is often fully in swing in his sermons, but are we any different at times?
I don’t expect I’ll ever willingly go back to “three points and a poem.” (Yes, that’s stereotype and hyperbole!) When I supply preach for a little church of about 15 - 20 seniors, I’ve begun doing exactly the same thing with them. To find themselves engaged in “conversation” (Damn, don’t we overuse that term!) has been amazing and fun, and sacramental to observe.
RPS
Comment by Neal Locke on 1 March 2007:
Here’s the story behind my interest in this subject: As youth-director at our church, I’m also the “back-up preacher” whenever needed. Our pastor called me late on a Saturday night a few months back, and he was very sick. Basically, he gave me the lectionary passage and said “good luck.”
I came to church the next morning with absolutely nothing to say–so I read the passage and passed out paper to everyone in the congregation, and let the music play for about five minutes. Then we collected what people had written, and I read them. Not selectively either. All of them. Some were deep, some were shallow, some were even theologically dubious, but I was amazed at how many people came up to me in the next few weeks to talk about how much it had meant to them.
I don’t think that approach would work every single week, but it opened my eyes to the fact that all people have opinions, and insight, and stories to share on just about any subject. And they really want to. What a diverse sermon it was!
If we could tap into even just a fraction of that on a regular basis, maybe even find a way to structure it (in a delicate, presby way, without killing it) as Drew put it “on the front end” or the preparation side…I’m excited already.
Comment by Adam Walker Cleaveland on 1 March 2007:
One other thing…Adam Copeland — if Columbia students are reading Rose and McClure — that’s great. I would still challenge them to actually try and use some of that type of homiletics training when they get out…
…but that stuff is NOT being talked about in Preaching at Princeton. Maybe in some advanced preaching courses. But the Intro courses that everyone is required to take…nope, never had any idea of conversational preaching/preaching as dialogue.
Comment by Neal Locke on 1 March 2007:
One more thing:
Anybody else here listen to folk music, besides me? Because there’s a connection, I think. Folk music is often so powerful because it is the music that “belongs to folks” (aka “everyone”). Sometimes we get so swept up in *ownership* in our capitalist, consumerist, copyright happy culture. We even sing worship songs that are “me driven” because they were written, originally performed, and copyrighted by a “me” somewhere. What if Christian sermons AND Christian music all belonged to all the folks–not just those who claim ownership by origination.
And that goes back to what we’ve been saying about Pagitt, too. I don’t care if he gives/takes credit for old ideas or new ones–I’m just glad he’s saying what he’s saying! Woody Guthrie (father of American folk) once put it this way:
“This song is Copyrighted in U.S., under Seal of Copyright # 154085, for a period of 28 years, and anybody caught singin’ it without our permission, will be mighty good friends of ourn, cause we don’t give a dern. Publish it. Write it. Sing it. Swing to it. Yodel it. We wrote it, that’s all we wanted to do.”
Comment by Jason Burns on 1 March 2007:
I’m new to this website, as well as emerging thoughts, although they are interesting to me. I’m not nearly as well read as most of you on the subject, but I can’t help seeing the connection in some emerging thoughts on sermons and modern educational philosophy. I am a high school teacher by trade and many of the emerging ideas for sermons seem to parallel what is currently being taught in teaching methods courses (inquiry-based instruction is a common name for it). I am wondering if there really is a connection here and if anyone has thought about the pros and cons of being so closely connected to secular philosophy.
Comment by Jim Bonewald on 1 March 2007:
Jason,
I remember Tony Jones (a big emergent guru) touching on this in his presentation at the mainline emergent conference many of us attended.
In fact he began his talk by presenting how educational philosophy and practice has changed in the last 25 years since he was is school and what is so different now that his own kids are in elementary school.
He essentially said the emergent church is finally beginning to catch on to these changes. He didn’t really extrapolate on either the pros or the cons.
Comment by Neal Locke on 2 March 2007:
God bless you, Jason. Three of my favorite subjects all in one thread, and I didn’t even have to bring this one (education) up.
As a former high school teacher myself, I remember sitting through my education courses, learning about John Dewey, Maria Montessori, and progressive education in general. My thoughts at the time went instantly to the church: Why aren’t churches doing any of this?
Of course, to be fair, while progressive education gets a lot of lip service at universities and teacher inservices, I don’t think most classrooms and/or teachers embody the concepts that well. Still, I’d say they are about 25 years ahead of where we are in the church.
And remember, John Dewey was talking about education as a communal process back in the 1920s. I don’t know, but I’m guessing that’s well ahead of Lucy Rose, John McClure, AND Doug Pagitt. (But not Woody!)
As to the connection with secular philosophy, I don’t think of philosophy as “secular” or “Christian” any more than I think of psychology, sociology, or medical science in those terms. If progressive education works at all (Dewey was a great pragmatist, wasn’t he?), then it can work to educate Christians as well.
Ummm…maybe that takes us to a whole new question: Is Sunday morning worship or education? Or both? Or neither?
Comment by Brian Wallace on 2 March 2007:
Here’s how I’ve seen this done:
A committee meets weekly and the person giving the message previews what they’re going to say a few weeks in advance. So for example, a month prior to the giving of the message you give a basic preview, and each week you add more and more detail and the committee can provide feedback. So basically a person previews their message before a committee three or four times before they give it, and then the week after they are reviewed.
As one who has used a process similar to this what is helpful about it as a preacher is that you get feedback ahead of time and the message is more carefully crafted. One of the challenges is to make sure that while accounting for the input of others you need to make sure the message remains your own. Also, like any committee the dynamics of a group shape things a great deal (sometimes for good, sometimes for bad)
As far as moving toward a more participatory style of preaching - in my mind it’s what most good youth ministers have learned years ago. Adults have just learned to sit still and not throw things or talk better than youth - but they only retain slightly more during a 30 minute speech.
I’ve found that especially in large settings (150+) it’s difficult to do a question and answer type, but having people discuss with their neighbor or the people sitting at their table works well.
Comment by Neal Locke on 2 March 2007:
Brian — I’m sure your method works well for those who use it, but would it be so bad if the message *didn’t* remain your own?
Again, what if the sermon preparation could belong to everyone, with the pastor serving as more of a moderator than a writer? I know that might be more idealistic than practical, but I still think it’s something worth striving for.
Besides, I’m not too big on ownership, especially abstract, non-tangible things like sermons and songs.
Comment by Chris Brown on 2 March 2007:
I’ve been a fan of collaborative sermon preparation ever since getting involved with The Open Door last year. They have a process called “Trialogue” where an open group of people from the congregation meet with the pastor (or whoever else is preaching) a week and a half before the sermon at a local coffee shop. The two times I’ve preached at Open Door, the comments and discussions which came up at Trialogue were invaluable to the sermon, and they provided a natural bridge to turn the message into a chance for participatory preaching, as well.
Since I’m currently working for a different, much more traditional church, the opportunities to prepare sermons with a group from the community have sharply decreased, but I jumped on one chance this week. Like the scenario given yesterday by RPS, this one hinges on the youth. At the Wednesday night Bible study for high school guys this week, I had the six guys there all read the passage I’ll be preaching on in the main church services on the 11th. When I told them that I wanted their feedback to help structure the sermon, they jumped right in. A couple had really helpful comments and questions which I plan to bring up. On this occassion, at least, collaborative sermon preparation is giving the youth (1) a reason to be involved in the traditional Sunday morning service, and (2)it’s letting the older majority of the congregation finally hear the voice of the youth, too.
Comment by JLD on 2 March 2007:
As a 33 year old I do not feel like an old fogey, though my comments may reveal otherwise. I have to say that I like a lot of what has been said about collaborative preaching. Currently at the church I pastor a small group gets together on Mondays to talk about the sermon that was preached on Sunday. Hopefully we can also soon begin one that struggles with the text before the sermon.
My question though is about sermons with Q and A times, conversations sermons, if you will. I have to say that when I was a student at Princeton I clearly recall the groans from many (including myself) whenever a student would interrupt the professor and ask a question or make a comment. While there were a FEW times when the question was helpful, 9 times out of 10 the question or comment was fairly inane and did little if anything to add to the “conversation.” Quite frankly, as harsh as this may sound, I had little desire to hear from my fellow students, during this time.
To be sure, later on I loved to argue and discuss what the professor had said, but again this was later on. Even now when I go to another church and they have “small group” time, I let out a groan. Again, I don’t feel like it’s a generational thing (actually it was usually the second careers who would ask the questions during lectures). Am I alone in feeling like this?
I think that sermons can be conversational (i.e. get your eyes off your manuscript/notes; speak more conversationally, etc.) without being overt times of chatter back and forth. I’m not trying to shoot down what’s been said, I just think that this is a way that can also be emergent.
Comment by drew on 2 March 2007:
I hear you. While occasionally I get questions asked while preaching, normally, I am the one to ask questions–I do a lot of moderating which keeps us on task.
And still, sometimes people say things that I do find particularly helpful, but a lot of preachers share things that the congregation doesn’t particularly find helpful, too.
I like the trialouge idea. I may steal it.
Comment by Neal Locke on 2 March 2007:
JLD — I don’t think you’re an “old fogey” for preferring a more traditional presentation style. I’m 31. Both of us grew up in an age where the *primary* transmission of information, art, music, and anything else of value was mono-directional: mostly TV, film, & Radio.
But we also witnessed (and participated in) the birth of Video-Games and the interactive web. The beautiful thing about our generation is that we’re amphibious — we move back and forth easily between both modes of learning.
I still love listening to a good sermon, looking at a nice photograph, or listening to an mp3. But I also like taking that mp3 and remixing it, and “photoshopping” that nice photograph. Wouldn’t it be cool if sermons were the same way?
I don’t think that “getting your eyes off the manuscript” is emergent — it’s just good speaking style. But I do agree that there’s a difference between conversation and chatter. Actually, I kind of object to the whole “Q & A” thing, too. For one, the word “answers” always makes me uneasy and second, it isn’t conversation. It’s questions and answers.
Comment by Neal Locke on 2 March 2007:
Chris — can you or someone from Open Door tell us more about how the “trialogue” thing works? (i.e. who’s invited, how it’s structured, what does the name mean, etc.). I like the idea, too, and am also considering theft.
Not surprised it’s coming from Open Door — they seem to be living up to their name on many levels!
Comment by Jan Edmiston on 2 March 2007:
Lucy was my advisor at Columbia Seminary before she died — my DMin paper was “Preaching as Group Spiritual Direction” and to prepare for that project — and now — I meet with anybody who wants to meet, on Wednesdays. We do some lectio divina, and reflect as a group on the passage for the coming Sunday’s message. Helps me in my writing and seems to be helpful to those who gather.
Comment by Brian Wallace on 3 March 2007:
Neal-
I should have been more clear. What is important in this process is that the message remains something you believe in - you don’t want to be saying other people’s words even if happen to agree with them.
What can sometimes happen is that instead of saying what you originally wanted to say you try and include everything and end up saying nothing. Plus, if what you’re saying really isn’t yours and you’re not passionate about, your delivery goes right down the tubes.
It’s not so much an issue of ownership as it is coherence and flow.
Comment by Neal Locke on 3 March 2007:
Yeah, I’m down with the flow. (Coherence, too, but it doesn’t sound nearly as cool to say, “I’m down with the coherence.”)
I think maybe what you’re getting at, Brian, is something highly valued in emerging church and culture: Authenticity. A sermon has to be “authentically you” for people to buy into it.
I can agree with that.
Perhaps there is a productive balancing point between “community” and “individualism” that can be found amidst all this talk about collaborative sermons.
Comment by Chris Brown on 5 March 2007:
Neal -
Open Door’s Trialogue process is actually really simple. Once a week, a varying group of people meets at a local coffee shop. It is open to anyone - invitations are usually made publicly during announcements at their worship gathering or in their e-newsletter. It’s always open to visitors; sometimes people from the congregation bring friends or family who have never even been to a worship gathering. Scripture is selected ahead of time by the preacher for each week. Once everyone is there, the group reads the passage together, and then conversation goes wherever the Spirit leads it. The preacher will take notes on whatever questions, issues, or good points come up, and then address and use those in the sermon. Sometimes the group closes by brainstorming creative and artistic ways for the congregation to respond to or particpate in the sermon. On the nights when I’ve participated, the conversation usually lasts around two hours, but I’m sure it’s been longer or shorter at other times. That’s as formal as it gets.
BJ tells me that he usually avoids reading the scripture passage ahead of time so that he comes to Trialogue open to whatever fresh ideas come from the other people there. I think the name Trialogue is meant to imply a three-way dialogue (God + multiple people), and I think is lives up to that name.
Comment by Tim hyde on 7 March 2007:
I’ve found similar help from using the readings for the week used in prayer meetings and other groups through the week. Nothing as formal as taking notes, but it is this collaborative meditation on scripture that helps the message form for Sunday. It goes without saying that preaching needs to be more interactive too.
A great book I have on my shelf is by Laurie Green called Let’s do theology, which is a wonderful book about doing theological reflection in amongst the congregation. It is based on the reflection model EXPERIENCE-EXPLORATION-REFLECTION-ACTION. Similar circles of reflection appear in other books and seminary courses, but Laurie describes many examples of groups of ordinary folk in local congregation grappling with life and the bible and coming to greater understanding and action. I think the concepts in this book may help think more deeply about this whole process.
Comment by Mike Gilbart-Smith on 27 March 2007:
JLD,
I’m with you, not just from the perspective of what I’m used to, not just because questions can be trivial, but for theological reasons. I’ve read Pagitt’s book, and there are things I really like and things I really dislike about it.
I agree that sermons should be prepared in the context of ongoing conversations within the congregation. I try to meet up with people during sermon prep to see what they can contribute to applications etc.
The very nature of Christianity is well modeled when God’s word is proclaimed and we sit with mouths closed. The congregation sitting in silence allows us to respond with our hearts first, by the power of the Holy Spirit.
When we are encouraged to respond quickly with our mouths, I fear that it will foster an attitude that the word of God itself is merely one opinion among many.
Comment by Neal Locke on 27 March 2007:
Mike: So Christianity is basically about “sitting down and shutting up?” I hope not.
I can (maybe) accept that the job of the preacher in worship is to proclaim God’s word, but your comment assumes that response (even a quick one) from the congregation is not ALSO the word of God being proclaimed. God can speak through uneducated fishermen, prostitutes, criminals, and yes, even lay people — IF we, in our hierarchical institutions are not too quick to silence God.
I realize that my argument makes just as much an assumption as does yours, but I’d rather listen to someone who is “not God” speaking and then use my God-given discernment to make that call, instead of the other way around.
Comment by TODD MILLER on 28 March 2007:
One of the first things our “associate” pastor did in the new process of emergence did to our worship was to step away from the “one-man” message and develop a worship planning team. As with most team dynamics, it took a little time to get the proper mix of too few, too many, too wild, or too conservative. We now have a worship team of 5-6 members. The keys I think are in the diversity of age, background, experience, gifts, and faith journies. Our ages range from 21 to 55; all attenders of the emergent service including such support personnel as the worship band leader, the technical team leader (me) and the youth director. The dynamic of our meetings sometimes could be best described as a cross between a writer’s meeting of Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip and MASH. How our pastor ever gets anything out of it I’ll never understand…..but we do do a good job at asking the “stupid” questions and throwing out the “crazy” idea that I think tend to make the messages and sermons more relatable and understandable…even fun! Early in the life of the team, I asked the Pastor if I should step down since I didn’t feel qualified to help “write” a sermon….I was “agnostic” up to 4 years ago afterall - so what did I know about faith and religion…stangely enough, she told me that THAT very experience (and why I had chosen it) and all my “dumb” questions were the things she valued MOST!…go figure!…..that’s what we do, and it works!
GOD BLESS….
Pingback by An Experiment in Collaborative Preaching | pomomusings | progressive theology & design on 8 September 2007:
[...] I’ve found to be very difficult. A few months ago, Neal wrote on Presbymergent about Collaborative Sermons. Open-sourcing sermons. Now, this is not like Sermons.com where you could just go and download a [...]
Pingback by Presbymergent Retrospective, 2007 : presbymergent on 1 April 2008:
[...] Collaborative Sermons, by Neal Locke [...]