A writing evolution (3)

Amy, it seems to me there’s a distinction and tension between courage, self-revelation and self-aggrandizement, but it is difficult to keep them from glopping over each other and easy to fool ourselves that we are engaged in one while actually indulging in another. It’s also easy—and usually highly encouraged—for pulpit speakers and writers to have strong convictions, which can masquerade as courage but can just as readily reflect the opposite—not having the courage to share our uncertainty, our confusion, our (gasp!) “moderation” on charged issues that aren’t always quite as clear and emphatic as we and those rooting us on from the grandstands would like.

What I’ve also noticed from the pulpit on my occasional lay preaching forays is how easy—and highly encouraged—it tends to be to share personal stories that reinforce the topic du jour. Ditto for blogging. Human beings are made to tell and soak up stories, after all, and we don’t know any stories better or more intimately than we do our own. But as you suggest, this can also amount to a dump, or a personal preening whose main purpose isn’t so much to inspire others as it is to bathe oneself in a carefully crafted light. Not “Look at this!” but “Look at me!”, all with the self-delusion that one is being “authentic” and revealing.

I have asked this question of ministers more than once: How many times should the pronoun “I” appear in a sermon? The responses tend toward, “It depends,” but I think everyone agrees it is good to keep the question in mind throughout the sermon (or blog!) construction process.

Back when I was writing newspaper editorials it was notable to me how much more strong and positive response I got from readers when I took an emphatic, unvarnished position, even if the matter was perhaps more complex than I was letting on. Reinforcement theory being what it is, those “Attaboy, love it!” declarations from the choir I was preaching to were difficult to resist, so I had to fight the gravitational pull to become a person of “positions,” even though my true core position was and mostly continues to be, “Most everything is very likely more nuanced than a 700-word argument can quite encapsulate.” And in order to truly stand behind my position, I ought to be able to understand and clearly articulate the opposite position without impugning its very foundation (hate-filled positions of vitriol excepted).

A final note bringing this closer to home: Those of us in the UU world have a lot of strongly principled “positions” that have much to commend them, but sometimes our scorn toward those with whom we disagree reflects not so much the courage of conviction as it does the closing of minds, the rejection of any possibility that we may be if not wrong then at least half-baked, or that there is any legitimacy whatsoever in positions we oppose. We are not always as truly “liberal”—open-minded, willing to listen and to evaluate people and their perspectives on their own merits—as we profess to be. This too represents a failure of the courage you reference. Sometimes, absolutely the most courageous thing we can do, whether minister, blogger or justice advocate, is to wander around a bit in our desert of confusion and uncertainty, hearkening back to our ancestral Christian values of humility and self-abnegation while struggling to grow something from it that is whole and true and devoid of smug certainty and cant. Coming out of that struggle with strong convictions is what I want from any preacher I listen to. I wish you well in that battle you have obviously joined.

Sorry for the length here. There was a lot to your post!

LikeLike