First: The column on discerning the will of God turned into a monster. No matter how many runs and re-writes I took to the topic, nothing worked. So, as they say, it's back to the drawing board...unless it's not God's will right now.
Second: I'm a political junkie and I admit it. But my wife is an enabler. I had successfully avoided watching any of the Democratic National Convention coverage last night until she came home late in the evening. So, when she turned on the television, I simply had to keep her company. It was my spousal duty.
I loved the panel MSNBC assembled for the evening: Chris Matthews, Howard Fineman, Andrea Mitchell, Willie Brown, and Joe Scarborough.
Scarborough, whose over-the-top partisanship on his own show rubs me the wrong way, is at his best when, as part of a panel, he analyzes things political. His comments last night that John Kerry's heroic military career would allow him to sleep well at night if Kerry were president (even though he disagrees with Kerry on nine out of ten issues) was a particularly gracious thing to say.
Matthews and Fineman are, of course, absolute pros. Both are so insightful and as always, I appreciate Matthews' evenhandedness and obvious love for both America and its politics. It's always a joy listening to and watching him!
Something that struck me as I watched last evening's festivities is that while Jimmy Carter has become the elder statesman of the Democratic Party, Bill Clinton is its elvis statesman. Like him or not, "the man from Hope" has undeniable star power. Part of that must come from his obvious love for people, an attribute about which both Mitchell and Brown commented last evening. In his ability to convey empathy and communicate accessibly and compellingly, Clinton is the Democratic Reagan. Like Reagan, Clinton communicates optimism. That's an indispensable asset to the leader. Optimism, to paraphrase the Bible's words about love, covers a multitude of sins.
There's another thing Clinton has in common with Reagan, I think. Those who knew Reagan in his younger days in Hollywood say that he was a motormouth, unable to stop talking about the minutiae of public policy issues. Clinton is the same way. That makes Clinton's tight and disciplined delivery last evening all the more remarkable.
Third: There's a really good article about Marshall McLuhan in the Spring, 2004 issue of the Wilson Quarterly. It was written by Tom Wolfe, today's would-be Mark Twain. It paints the guru of "understanding media" as something of a lovable carnival barker. Although McLuhan was a man of undeniable brilliance, he also was a self-promoter who liked to speak in the language of deliberately obscure paradox. (At least according to Wolfe.) Another insight that Wolfe offers is his belief that McLuhan was deeply dependent on the thinking of Teilhard de Chardin. Wolfe is such a good writer and he obviously has a warm affection for McLuhan.
Fourth: A book I've been reading lately is Brother Lawrence's Practicing the Presence of God. Brother Lawrence believed that we could be in constant conversation with God, something he tried to enact in his mundane activities in the monastery kitchen.
I love this notion, one that resonates with me as a Lutheran. In my tradition, we emphasize things like the priesthood of all believers (First Peter 2:9-10) and a theology of the cross, theology done "from below," rooted in the God Who took on flesh, dwelt among us, lived as a servant, and died for us (John 1:1-18; Philippians 2:4-11).
I also love it because when I am at my best in life, it's when I live with the consciousness of God's presence and the desire to glorify Him in all that I do.
Conversely, my life is always at its worst when I "go it alone," leading me to act in ways that were I to catalog them here, would cause people to have a rather low opinion of me, I think.
But here too, Brother Lawrence is helpful. Part of living in a constant consciousness of God's presence is remembering that He is a God of grace, "slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love." Lawrence repeatedly underscorse the fact that once God has called attention to our sins, we should confess them and then, "without anxiety," keep on living in the cheerful certainty of God's love and His willingness to help us avoid such sins in the future. It reminds me of the wonderful words that appear in First John:
...if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous...Fifth: The latest issue of The Lutheran magazine reports on a study comparing female and male preaching styles at Lutheran congregations. The study was done as part of her graduate thesis at Ball State University by Tracy Paschke-Johannes. In it, Paschke-Johannes is quoted in the article as saying, that she "looked for themes and common usage of persuasion...any phrase or words used to change a person's thoughts or actions."
Among Paschke-Johannes' findings:
- Women who employed "repetition" did so with greater frequency than did men.
- Men "explained" God's relevance to everyday situations more than women.
- Women were more likely to "tell stories on themselves," revealing their faith struggles or making themselves the butt of their humor.
- Women were more likely to joke or make "sarcastic comments" about their children.
- Few prayed either before or after their sermons.
- Men were more likely to explain the Greek background of Biblical words.
A few reactions:
1. While it's difficult for me to tell from this article, it appears that the study is based on a very small sample of sermons. (Which may be understandable; not even a preacher like me would want to sample too many sermons). According to The Lutheran, Paschke-Johannes looked at fifteen sermons by women and fifteen by men.
2. All of the sermons used in the study were posted on the web. That makes it difficult to know whether Paschke-Johannes's conclusion that only three women and two men prayed either at the beginning or the end of their sermons is accurate. I post my sermons (messages) on this web site; while I always pray before I preach, I never write my prayers out, or post them on the site. One suspects that I'm not alone in that practice.
3. It's possible that some of the differences in preaching style, whether as it relates to revealing personal faith struggles, comments about one's family, or relating the Scriptures to real-life situations, might have less to do with gender than it does with generational differences or differences in personal piety.
It may in fact be worthwhile to know about the differences between male and female preaching styles. It could be particularly helpful in understanding the effects of various preaching styles on congregations. But it's difficult for me to draw any conclusions from at least the summary of Paschke-Johannes' study.
That's more than enough for now.
No comments:
Post a Comment