Preachers and Credibility
Abstract:
Any change I make to physical appearance, speech,
music, even worship practice runs the risk of becoming "just another gimmick,"
and I fail to pull off being what I attempt to become.
Body:
Warning - academic speak follows:
This post set me thinking about credibility and how preachers attempt to achieve it. I think there are many social discourses (discourses refer to more than language - dress, dialect, etc.) operating in and around discussion of "the emerging church" which go unacknowledged. How does one become an authority on a movement or trend? How does one signal to others that they are part of a group? Do you get tatted up both arms, spike your hair, dress in some exotic flavor? Do you go the academic route and grow a beard and get eyeglasses with tiny frames? Do you produce an impressive CV? When I bring up such issues, people tend to be dismissive. Dress and credentials and all these "superficial" things are not important, they say.
Except that they are. Everyone is attempting to pull off being a certain kind of person, trying to achieve an image they have of themselves. Failure to pull off being a certain kind of person (even if that kind of person is "authentic") will result in harsh social penalties and a loss of credibility.
Like Holden Caufield, we may lament that the world is full of phonies. But also like him, we play the game. If social discourse is phony (which it is not), then we are all phonies. The validation of authenticity is only an affirmation that we have succeeded in pulling off what we present ourselves as - "a genuine person," maybe. What kind of clothes does a genuine person wear? What kind of music does a genuine person listen to? The fact that we label successful discourses "genuine" highlights the power of social discourses. Put another way, people we label as "phony" have simply failed to pull off being something we believed they were attempting. Perhaps we were wrong in reading what they were attempting? But the fact that we make such judgments at all is proof that we believe and act within social discourses.
Social discourses decide if we have credibility, and who we have credibility among. As a preacher, I've been brushed off because I've worn a robe and because I've not worn a robe, because I have used church-language and because I've not used church-language. Most frustrating is when we do not read the social context correctly and we fail, or are perceived to fail, pulling off a certain social discourse. Then you're just a poser. These are language and power games.
And I'll confess, I have instantly dismissed others for similar reasons. I'm one of those people who has not gone to hear a particular preacher or speaker because their hair is wrong. Oh, don't look so shocked. When you've been channel-surfing, you've seen the televangelist with the hair helmet and in less than a second you made a judgment about how much you wanted to hear what he had to say.
Part of being in a group is accepting certain judgments about other groups as part of the group's philosophy. For example, some pastors in the church accuse academics of living in ivory towers. Academics accuse pastors who are not part of the intellegentsia of being "out of touch," or "premodern," or "trendy" - sometimes all at the same time! It's not uncommon to hear pastors being dismissive of seminary education. Nor is it rare to hear professors lamenting the state of the church when they have such blockheaded student-pastors to work with. I've inhabited both worlds and I've seen how these social discourses play out. You can lose credibility if you sound too smart. You can lose credibility for not using the right words. You can lose credibility for not having credentials. You can lose credibility for having credentials.
The reason this post got me thinking in this direction was I wondered what kind of things signify credibility to people suspicious of the establishment? (This wondering of mine is tangential - I'm not implying Taylor is necessarily "suspicious of the establishment"). How does someone achieve credibility among a group (street cred) especially when it comes to conversation about what is or is not properly "emerging?" What external social discourses signal to people hungry for reform or revolution that we should engage in conversation, that we are like-minded revolutionaries?
Preachers who agonize over reaching the world for Christ at some point have to struggle with credibility. And I'm not sure what is most threatening to preachers - the idea that their message might be irrelevant or that they may not have credibility. When it comes to signaling those frustrated with the institutional church that, though I am a representative of that institution, I'm also working to change it, where do I begin? Do I amplify my criticism of the church? Do I change what I do in worship? Any change I make to physical appearance, speech, music, even worship practice runs the risk of becoming "just another gimmick," and I fail to pull off being what I attempt to become. As pastors, we pull off or fail at a certain social discourse.
As groups, particular churches also participate in social discourse. What kind of church is this? A white yuppie church? A black prosperity gospel church? A contemporary church? A blue-haired church?
Again, it is easy for sincere people to misunderstand - you don't get to opt out of participating in a social discourse. This isn't about "fooling people" or being "authentic" or "wearing a mask." Social discourses run very deep, and you can no more opt out than you can decide not to have race, or socioeconomic class, or gender, or politics. You may do one or two social discourses very well, but you always broadcast social information.
How do preachers, pastors, and teachers achieve credibility?
This post set me thinking about credibility and how preachers attempt to achieve it. I think there are many social discourses (discourses refer to more than language - dress, dialect, etc.) operating in and around discussion of "the emerging church" which go unacknowledged. How does one become an authority on a movement or trend? How does one signal to others that they are part of a group? Do you get tatted up both arms, spike your hair, dress in some exotic flavor? Do you go the academic route and grow a beard and get eyeglasses with tiny frames? Do you produce an impressive CV? When I bring up such issues, people tend to be dismissive. Dress and credentials and all these "superficial" things are not important, they say.
Except that they are. Everyone is attempting to pull off being a certain kind of person, trying to achieve an image they have of themselves. Failure to pull off being a certain kind of person (even if that kind of person is "authentic") will result in harsh social penalties and a loss of credibility.
Like Holden Caufield, we may lament that the world is full of phonies. But also like him, we play the game. If social discourse is phony (which it is not), then we are all phonies. The validation of authenticity is only an affirmation that we have succeeded in pulling off what we present ourselves as - "a genuine person," maybe. What kind of clothes does a genuine person wear? What kind of music does a genuine person listen to? The fact that we label successful discourses "genuine" highlights the power of social discourses. Put another way, people we label as "phony" have simply failed to pull off being something we believed they were attempting. Perhaps we were wrong in reading what they were attempting? But the fact that we make such judgments at all is proof that we believe and act within social discourses.
Social discourses decide if we have credibility, and who we have credibility among. As a preacher, I've been brushed off because I've worn a robe and because I've not worn a robe, because I have used church-language and because I've not used church-language. Most frustrating is when we do not read the social context correctly and we fail, or are perceived to fail, pulling off a certain social discourse. Then you're just a poser. These are language and power games.
And I'll confess, I have instantly dismissed others for similar reasons. I'm one of those people who has not gone to hear a particular preacher or speaker because their hair is wrong. Oh, don't look so shocked. When you've been channel-surfing, you've seen the televangelist with the hair helmet and in less than a second you made a judgment about how much you wanted to hear what he had to say.
Part of being in a group is accepting certain judgments about other groups as part of the group's philosophy. For example, some pastors in the church accuse academics of living in ivory towers. Academics accuse pastors who are not part of the intellegentsia of being "out of touch," or "premodern," or "trendy" - sometimes all at the same time! It's not uncommon to hear pastors being dismissive of seminary education. Nor is it rare to hear professors lamenting the state of the church when they have such blockheaded student-pastors to work with. I've inhabited both worlds and I've seen how these social discourses play out. You can lose credibility if you sound too smart. You can lose credibility for not using the right words. You can lose credibility for not having credentials. You can lose credibility for having credentials.
The reason this post got me thinking in this direction was I wondered what kind of things signify credibility to people suspicious of the establishment? (This wondering of mine is tangential - I'm not implying Taylor is necessarily "suspicious of the establishment"). How does someone achieve credibility among a group (street cred) especially when it comes to conversation about what is or is not properly "emerging?" What external social discourses signal to people hungry for reform or revolution that we should engage in conversation, that we are like-minded revolutionaries?
Preachers who agonize over reaching the world for Christ at some point have to struggle with credibility. And I'm not sure what is most threatening to preachers - the idea that their message might be irrelevant or that they may not have credibility. When it comes to signaling those frustrated with the institutional church that, though I am a representative of that institution, I'm also working to change it, where do I begin? Do I amplify my criticism of the church? Do I change what I do in worship? Any change I make to physical appearance, speech, music, even worship practice runs the risk of becoming "just another gimmick," and I fail to pull off being what I attempt to become. As pastors, we pull off or fail at a certain social discourse.
As groups, particular churches also participate in social discourse. What kind of church is this? A white yuppie church? A black prosperity gospel church? A contemporary church? A blue-haired church?
Again, it is easy for sincere people to misunderstand - you don't get to opt out of participating in a social discourse. This isn't about "fooling people" or being "authentic" or "wearing a mask." Social discourses run very deep, and you can no more opt out than you can decide not to have race, or socioeconomic class, or gender, or politics. You may do one or two social discourses very well, but you always broadcast social information.
How do preachers, pastors, and teachers achieve credibility?
Posted: Sat - February 17, 2007 at 11:37 AM |
Quick Links
About
Dave Barnhart
Why Vulgar Homiletics?
Personae:
All Consuming | Del.icio.us | Last.fm | MySpace | Zaadz
contact: dave at davebarnhart dot net
Why Vulgar Homiletics?
Personae:
All Consuming | Del.icio.us | Last.fm | MySpace | Zaadz
contact: dave at davebarnhart dot net
Categories
Archives
XML/RSS Feed
Calendar
| Sun | Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat |
Looking and Listening
Recently played:
Weekly Top Artists:
Blogroll
Blog Stuff
Statistics
Total entries in this blog:
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Feb 18, 2007 06:51 PM
Total entries in this category:
Published On: Feb 18, 2007 06:51 PM