Tuesday, November 11, 2008

 

Outside Sources

Milt Stanley links to the Biblical Preaching blog on speaking advice from Winston Churchill. I was attracted to this becasue I was taught, and agree, that there were only two GREAT orators in the 20th century - Martin Luther King and Winston Churchill. King has been imitated over and over and all imitators pale in comparison. Far as I can tell, no one comes close to Churchill, or has even tried.

Milt professes some ambivalence about the post. He thinks the advice, but I cannot tell if his ambivalence about using advice from a decidedly secular speaker, or about the idea of using a "power line" (I think we'd probably call it a "sound bite" more frequently) in the context of a sermon.

I have no problem borrowing ideas from anywhere, secular, holy, whatever. They are ideas - they are neutral. We are holy, we are saved. Of course, there are bad ideas and we should reject them, but there can be a lot learned about aspects of our activity from those that pursue similar activity for secular purpose. The similarities between religious and political speech-making are just too real not for both streams to borrow liberally from each other.

What about the idea of the "power line?" Says Biblical Preaching:
James C. Humes, in his book, Speak Like Churchill, Stand Like Lincoln: 21 Powerful Secrets of History’s Greatest Speakers, gives Churchill’s formula for planning a true power line. In the speech of a politician this is the sound-bite designed to galvanize the nation, or reach millions in the media. It’s the cream that rises to the top of a speech. Perhaps we can consider these elements as we craft the message idea – our power line.
Is there a place for a "power line" in preaching?

I think this is a very legitimate question - while simple and effective and decidedly impactful, power lines tend to be removed from context and warped over the years into something entirely different from what they were when they were originally uttered.

There is also the important question of whether a sermon should have a single "take away" thought. If the purpose of preaching is to transform, and we are transformed "by the renewing of our minds," can something as simplistic as a "power line" truly aid in that goal. The the effectiveness of the power line for inspiration and motivation cannot be questioned - Churchill won World War Two with them - but do they change us? People could not wait to "get back to the way things were" after the War.

More counter examples. MLK certainly changed the nation, but becasue his ideas were reduced to single snips those changes have been morphed into things like reparations and racial quotas. John Kennedy was another master of the power line ("Ask not...") and yet his legacy is now claimed by people so far removed from his low-tax, pro-business, nuclear brinkmanship policies as to be virtually unrecognizable.

There is a place for the power line in preaching, but it should be used sparingly and with definite purpose. It is, as best as I can tell, a tool for inspiration and motivation, BUT NOT FOR TRANSFORMATION.

When I look at the church today I see no lack of inspiration and motivation. We move people to come to church and to give money and maybe to alter one small aspect of their behavior. But we fail to engage them in their totality - we fail to offer them the truly transformative grace and power of the Holy Spirit.

This is good advice with very limited application for the church.

Technorati Tags:, , ,
Generated By Technorati Tag Generator

|

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

Site Feed

Blogotional

eXTReMe Tracker

Blogarama - The Blog Directory