Experiential Storytelling

While perusing through my local Borders Bookstore on Sunday evening, I ran across and purchased a book I heard about but haven't seen:  Experiential Storytelling: (Re)Discovering Narrative to Communicate God's Message by Mark Miller.

I read through about a third of the book last night.  I find it intriguing and compelling as well as scandalous and disturbing all at the same time.  Some, just by the title alone, will judge the book as postmodernism's destructive work in the church.  Others will think these ideas are the key to speaking to a world changed by postmodernism.  I want to deliver some quotes for discussion here. 

Miller defines "experiential storytelling"...

- creating an environment that allows others to participate in the telling of a story through sensory interaction (p. 7)

On Experience...

What if we were to take our message and begin speaking the language of the natives?  Instead of telling people Jesus is the light of the world, what if we showed them the stark difference between light and darkness?

What if we removed all of the argumentative language, replaced it with beautiful narratives, and let people feel the power of the story?  Instead of trying to convince people to accept a list of spiritual laws, how about placing individuals in the story, allowing them to learn and interact with God's character? (p. 26)

A Jewish Teaching Story...

Truth, naked and cold, had been turned away from every door in the village.  Her nakedness frightened the people.  When Parable found her, she was huddled in a corner, shivering and hungry.  Taking pity on her, Parable gathered her up and took her home.  There, she dressed Truth in story, warmed her and sent her out again.  Clothed in story, Truth knocked again at the villagers' doors and was readily welcomed into the people's houses.  They invited her to eat at their table and warm herself by their fire. (p. 29)

On Story...

Stories address us on every level.  They speak to the mind, the body, the emotions, the spirit, and the will.  In a story a person can identify with situations he or she has never been in.  The individual's imagination is unlocked to dream what was previously unimaginable. (p. 33)

Quoting Annette Simmons...

Stories are "more true" than facts because stories are multi-dimensional.  Truth with a capital "T" has many layers.  Truths like justice or integrity are too complex to be expressed in a law, a statistic, or a fact.  Facts need the context of when, who, and where to become Truths. (p. 36)

Sermon vs. Story...

A sermon tells people what to think.  A story forces people to do the thinking for themselves.  It can feel dangerous because it allows for interpretation.  But on of the adjectives used to describe the Holy Spirit is "counselor."  Do we trust our people and the Holy Spirit enough to allow them to think for themselves?  Can we leave something open-ended, knowing the conclusion might not come until later that day, week, month, or year?  Can we allows people to own the stories?  Or do we do all of the interpreting and leave nothing to the imagination?

My believe is that when a story becomes personal and people begin to become unsettled and challenged by it, then they have been touched in a place where facts fear to tread.  It is a place so personal that it can spark and inner transformation. (p. 41)

Quoting Dieter Zander...

When you put your face next to an "A" string and begin to hum and "A"--that string will begin to vibrate.  The "D" won't, the "G" won't, but the "A" will.  Because it was created to vibrate with that tone.  The thing about the story--God's story--is that when it is told and applied well, and when it is supported in a sensorial way, something inside our heart starts to vibrate, regardless of whether we are a Christian or not, because we were created for our hearts to vibrate with that story. (pp. 42-43)

Buy it at Amazon.  Also, read my follow-up post on this book along with my take after finishing it.

Comments

[clark]

Steve,
Great book. I read this about a year ago and it has help me with molding devo talks or sermons, whatever. Recently I was asked by my former campus ministry to come and talk at their weekly gathering. I knew what I wanted to say and probably could have come up with a passage or a few verses to surround the talk, but I didn't. I decided to make up a parable or short story (probably 15 minutes long). I didn't bring my Bible or quote another author, just got up and told this story. I figured: 1.students are "preached/lectured" to everyday. 2.who am i to think my words are that important or formative.

Anyway, thought I would share. I think most preachers/pastors are scared for others in the pews to think for themselves and arrive at a conclusion, whether that be different from what the preacher had in mind. Enjoy the rest of the book, especially the Jesus Retreat.

[Chris W]

'When you put your face next to an "A" string and begin to hum and "A"--that string will begin to vibrate. The "D" won't, the "G" won't, but the "A" will. '

Not exactly true. Humming an "A" might indeed cause the D-string to vibrate, as the "A" that you hum likely has a set of overtones attached to it....a very likely harmonic candidate is "D." And vice versa. Unless you can hum a pure tone, with no overtones....very unlikely.

Just thought I'd nitpick a bit. Interesting quotes.

[Steve McCoy]

Chris, I'm sure Zander is speaking more in terms of theory. I had similar ideas as you shared, but ideally isn't Zander still correct?

By the way, did you grab a guitar and try it? :) I'm trying to picture it.

[Chris W]

Oh, like you never stuck your face right in front of a guitar and hummed. You know what it looks like.

Yeah, I know what Zander's saying, but the musician in me just couldn't help responding with a "yeah, but..."

[Steve McCoy]

And I humbly accept your critique. But all blame goes to Zander. ;^)

[Wes]

"A sermon tells people what to think. A story forces people to do the thinking for themselves...do we do all of the interpreting and leave nothing to the imagination?"

He seems to be criticizing the apostles' style of conveying the gospel as well as countless other preachers throughout history. I don't agree with his implication that a sermon is inferior to narratives.

I specifically recall that Jesus and Nathan used parables to convey God's truth to people. So I'm not ready to say we shouldn't go back to that. But I see no basis for criticizing sermons when they have been so effective throughout the history of Christianity.

Plus, I don't see any biblical proof that the parables of Christ were any more effective, though they do require a bit more thinking and imagination, than the sermons by Peter, Paul, et al in the marketplaces or the synagogues. I see both methods as a biblical way to convey God's truth. Both means are effective with the full blessing and aid of the Holy Spirit, and both means are completely ineffective without.

[Steve McCoy]

Wes,

I have a feeling you think sermon means 3 points and an intro and conclusion, exposition. Do you see Peter and Paul doing this? Or do you see sermon as something else?

So...

1. What do you think Miller means by "sermon?"
2. What do you think he means to say story is better than sermon? What is he combating?

[Wes]

Steve,
I wasn't thinking just of a structured American sermon. I was trying to use Miller's definition of a sermon (although not given explicitly). A sermon "tells people what to think." I see this including a pastor who presents to you the meaning of a biblical passage or Peter speaking to the crowds on the day of the most famous Pentecost.

Peter quotes some OT, interprets the prophecy for them, points it to Jesus, and then ends with "Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified" (Acts 2:36).

Peter seems to be telling them what to think here. I don't see too much creativity or imagination involved here, and yet it works. Works quite well I noticed--3000 people added to their number that one day.

1. So it appears to me that Miller thinks a sermon is "something that tells the people what to think." He might even add that it is the passing on of biblical facts or truth without any room for creativity, personal struggle for the meangin, or sparking of imagination in the mind of the listener. He seems to see sermons as the non-preferred or less effective method.

2. I'm not certain what Miller is combatting. To assume the best about him, I would guess that he's heard some dull sermons that don't make him think and he wants to go in a different direction.

Perhaps Miller is right that stories have their place in teaching and should be used more often. But I think his claims that they should REPLACE sermons is unfounded.

[Todd]

Steve,

Mark is a great young guy. I heard him do a workshop on "Experiential Storytelling" at a YS event with Spencer Burke las October. We shared a meal. He does have some good thoughts. I don't think he would be dismissive of what we might refer to as "conventional" sermons (3 pts/poem - int/app/ill). I really think he may suggest narrative/story carries more of the idea of "manifold" used by Paul in Eph. 3 to desribe the "many-sided" wisdom of God. Story gives a great occasion to draw this out where it might take a series of sermons to do the same. I would like to think a series of sermons would retain the connectedness i would like but alas attention spans don't always afford us the privilege.

just thoughts.

Todd

[Mark Miller]

Great posts. I loved being able to "listen" in on this conversation.

Todd, you were right when you said that I would not be dismissive of the conventional sermon. My chapter begins with the idea that we ALSO need to think beyond what we traditionally have come to view a sermon. I think our definitions have been narrow and we have simply been passing down the same old pattern because that is what we have "experienced" and have been taught.

I was reminded of this idea of tradition recently when I looked at a picture in Newsweek magazine of the new Pope surrounded by his Cardinals. To them, THIS is the way that Peter would want it- grown men dressed up in Papal garb. I tried to imagine what he would be thinking. I wonder if he would be thinking about how different this concept of church leadership was with how he began the church.

I wonder how Peter would view sermons today as well. Was his "sermon" in Acts 2 really a message on what to think? Or was he helping people to wrap their brains around a supernatural experience that they couldn't explain? Personally, I think Peter was being a storyteller here. And since much of the New Testament seems to be written to specific audiences who understand the culture and context, why shouldn't we do the same?

Thanks for allowing me to chime in.

[Steve McCoy]

Thanks for the comment Mark. I have one chapter left. A new post should be up today or tomorrow on the book.

I agree with your challenges to a lot of preaching today, and I do think we need to be storytellers. I like a lot from the book including great quotes.

[Wes]

Mark (or anybody),
I don't really understand how that Peter was a "storyteller" on the day of Pentecost. Honestly, he seems pretty straighforward. There is no hint of allegory or parable here. Am I looking for the wrong elements?

I would say that even a sermon--at least a good sermon by a good preacher--is an exposition from Scripture that (to use your own words) "helps people to wrap their mind" around something so vast, deep, and unexhaustible as the Scripture. No good sermon removes all need for intellect or thought.