Hi Di,

Give or take, thats what he says in the book. I’m not sure he thinks truth is on the ‘out’ - just that it is getting shoved into ridiculously short soundbytes, rather than being carefully explained or analysed.

More on that in the next installment!

I’ve heard some good things about this book, and I’m looking forward to this series.

However…

I’m a little wary of the whole “people can only consume sound-bites” sort of argument. These sorts of things always feel like they are harking back to a supposed golden age, when everyone was intelligent and literate, had read Homer, Cicero and Calvin, and was able to listen to a 3 hour doctrinaire sermon, then recite the contents back verbatim.

I just don’t believe this golden age ever existed. Or if it did, it was only ever amongst a nice, clean upper middle class.

Is editing possible? Poor computer literacy skills on display in my last comment!!

Craig,

He’s not wanting us to go back to 3 hr sermons being repeated verbatim. He is simply arguing that we need to work harder at developing a longer concentration span because that is what is needed for the processing and understanding of complicated issues.

One of the facts that is listed in the book is the average length of sound bytes broadcast by ‘the networks’ of campaigning presidential candidates in the US. In 1968 it was 42.3 seconds and in 1988 it was 9.8 seconds. In 2000 it was 7.8 seconds. He says

“we are swamped by the inconsequential, bombarded by images and sounds that rob us of the opportunity for reflection and contemplation that are necessary to reacquaint ourselves with what is significant.” (p58)

Its a good question that he asks following this observation. “What kinds of ministers does such a culture produce?”

<i>He is simply arguing that we need to work harder at developing a longer concentration span </i>

But how does the preacher taking additional study develop a longer concentration span in his audience?

And say a preacher does manage (somehow) to “de-post-modernise” his congregation - how then does he, and they, communicate to the outside world who are still post-modern?

It’s also worth remembering that it’s not just our preachers who need to work hard. Listening well involves hard work and there are plenty of lazy listeners in church (myself often included). If we come away from church thinking “I didn’t get much out of the sermon today” we should not automatically assume the problem does not lie with ourselves.

Hi Ellen (cluck!!)

I certainly agree with your points about poor preaching. I don’t think Gordon is suggesting that increasing literacy is the one big answer to making sermons brilliant - in fact we have a few chapters to go so we’ll see what else he comes up with.

Just to clarify - Gordon talking about society being ‘aliterate’ not ‘illiterate’ (gee I hope I got the spelling of those correct!) In a nutshell, the difference is that illiterate is an inability to read, whereas aliterate is being able to read, but choosing not to.

I’m glad your 8yo is ahead of where you were at the same stage - I think my kids are the same. However the question is, as he grows up will he choose to use those literacy skills in a careful and critical way engaging with long and complicated texts and arguments, or be satisfied with MSN and soundbytes?

Hi Peter

Thanks for the review (part i). Looking forward to the future installments.

The discussion thus far reminds me somewhat of Neil Postman’s point in Amusing Ourselves to Death. He contrasted the dystopian visions of Orwell’s 1984, where a totalitarian state enslaved its populace through thought-control, and Huxley’s Brave New World, where the populous gladly enslaved itself in meaningless diversions like the ‘Feelies’ and the ‘Centrifgual Bumblepuppy’ (if memory serves).

Postman’s thesis was that Huxley’s vision turned out to be the more accurate. Sounds like Gordon is taking a similar line, and it’s hard to disagree.

It also strikes me that preaching is an inherently literate activity in that it involves a careful, curious, humble reading of the text, a critical reading of the thoughts of others, the ability to analyse and synthesize all these ideas, and then the wit to formulate a coherent argument and communicate it compellingly to others.

TP

Hey Peter.  Thanks for the thought-provoking post and thanks to everyone else for your interesting comments!

Tony - you’re spot on with your recollections re Neil Postman.  Here’s what he wrote in the foreword to “Amusing Ourselves to Death”:  “... in Huxley’s vision, no Big Brother is required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history.  As he saw it, people will come to love their oppression, to adore the technologies that undo their capacities to think… Orwell feared those who would deprive us of information.  Huxley feared those who would give us so much that we would be reduced to passivity and egoism.  Orwell feared that the truth would be concealed from us.  Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.  Orwell feared we would become a captive culture.  Huxley feared we would become a trivial culture…”

Neil Postman wrote this 23 years ago!

I wish I could remember who recently said this, but one wise person has described our current culture as ‘much-informed rather than well-informed’.  I think this ties in with the idea of ‘aliteracy’, Peter.

In my own experience, one of the finest communication methods is love - if the teacher (literature or Bible) has a deep love for what they teach, the effectiveness of their teaching is greatly enhanced.

Looking forward to more, Peter.

Hi Marcus,

I agree that the review he gives of the general state of preaching is pretty sobering, but unfortunately my (short) experience here in North America (USA + Mexico) is that it is pretty accurate. In the second installment (which is coming up soon) he talks about the poor use of the Bible and of sermons becoming ‘generalised’ and ‘all the same’ because the text isn’t carefully engaged with. That is a common experience here.

How to give it to your minister? Good question. I think it should be given in a spirit of care and love - not as a stick to say ‘I told you so’, but as an encouragement to say ‘we think the work you are doing is so important and we want to encourage you in it.’

By the way - everyone - its a short, easy book to read. I started it while waiting for a plane to Mexico City (from Monterrey) and was finished by the time we were descending through the smog! (1:30 later) But then again, maybe I was just reading for information!

Hi Randy,

You are right in saying that Gordon assumes that preaching is in itself a good method (although largely done badly). He does make several passing references to his Presbyterian confessional background and uses that as a ‘foundation’ as to why preaching is an effective and worthy method of expressing God’s word to his people.

I suppose it also undergirds the whole thesis of the book. If he didn’t think preaching was a useful method, then there wouldn’t be any need for it to improve.

However I guess a discussion of whether or not preaching in itself is an effective method is beyond the scope of what he is saying.

There are plenty of good books that discuss that question. eg: ‘When God’s voice is heard’
(Stott, Carson, Retief, Packer and others, IVP, 2003)