In the following article Phil Cooke discusses how often politicians and preachers have a lack of substance in what they are saying and doing. We have become more interested in the theatrical and the flare than in what we are saying. Preachers are putting on a show too much. I do not want to be one of those preachers. I want to preach the word of God. I want to do it in such a way that you learn God and His word. I want to be a Bible preacher. Read the article. I am in no way trying to make any political statement but Mr Cooke does call us preachers on the carpet. I want to be sure that I am preaching like He wants me to. Again I will put bold and red in a few places to make sure that you read them!
I wrote earlier about what I believe to be a deliberate strategy by Barack Obama to use words to inspire and motivate his audiences rather than actually offer specific steps for actual change. That’s not a “for or against Obama” comment. It’s a comment on strategy. I say this, because it’s not that different from a lot of pastors out there today. They don’t really know the Bible that well, and have become motivational speakers more that actual teachers and pastors. In my book, “Branding Faith” I talk about the fact that when I visit many pastor’s offices today, I notice that the bookshelves that used to be filled with books on theology, doctrine, and church history, have now been replaced by the latest bestsellers on motivation and marketing.
I get that same feeling from Obama. He seems to be well spoken, and does a really great job of inspiring audiences. But up to now, he hasn’t really laid out too much in the way of specific steps for HOW he’s going to make this vague sense of “change” happen. Today, in the Wall Street Journal, columnist Peggy Noonan echoed the same sentiment. She writes:
“Barack Obama’s biggest draw is not his eloquence. When you watch an Obama speech, you lean forward and listen and think, That’s good. He’s compelling, I like the way he speaks. And afterward all the commentators call him “impossibly eloquent” and say “he gave me thrills and chills.” But, in fact, when you go on the Internet and get a transcript of the speech and print it out and read it–that is, when you remove Mr. Obama from the words and take them on their own–you see the speech wasn’t all that interesting, and was in fact high-class boilerplate. (This was not true of John F. Kennedy’s speeches, for instance, which could be read seriously as part of the literature of modern American politics, or Martin Luther King’s work, which was powerful absent his voice.)
Mr. Obama is magnetic, interacts with the audience, leads a refrain: “Yes, we can.” It’s good, and compared with Hillary Clinton and John McCain, neither of whom seems really to enjoy giving speeches, it comes across as better than it is. But is it eloquence? No. Eloquence is deep thought expressed in clear words. With Mr. Obama the deep thought part is missing. What is present are sentiments.
Our country can be greater, it holds unachieved promise, our leaders have not led us well. “We struggle with our doubts, our fears, our cynicism.” Fair enough and true enough, but he doesn’t dig down to explain how to become a greater nation, what specific path to take–more power to the state, for instance, or more power to the individual. He doesn’t unpack his thoughts, as they say. He asserts and keeps on walking.”
It’s a great strategy – for Barack or pastors – until you get found out. Real change is more than motivation or inspiration. While that’s an important part, without concrete steps to make that change happen, everything simply stays the same.
Leave a Reply