high flight
Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:13 am
Because I am one Old Testament those theist believers I maintian some hope that ministers speaking may on occasion nuture a bit of wisdom. I realize it does not always work that way. There is a tendancy for ministers to get engrossed in the thrill of speaking. There is a temptation to a pulpit where one is a bit above the ciriticism. It can create an illusion that ideas poping into ones head can be said without them coming back subject to critical reflection.
So one can collect examples of ministers saying garbage. Now there is also a thrill to allowing words to fly in free association. Ministers can be swept along in the rush. I am quite sure that audiences not only tolerate such flights but can enjoy and encourage them as they can be caught up in the flight themselves.
Intoxicated flight in words can sometimes be like other forms of intoxications. They may not look so good in sober retrospect.
I am thinking of course about the newly famous Mr Wright. I have listened to various pieces of his words presented by sanctimonious political enemies all claiming to wonder what moral monster says these things. Now there are a couple things I heard which struck me as drunken phrases now seen sober. Intentioanal aids is inexcusable bad thought. I do not think moral fingerpointing is a clear sort of thought response to 9/11. However I do remember ministers of a variety of stripes making that response, each choosing there favorite moral whipping boy. I think that a shallow kneejerk excuse for procticle thought.
On the other hand my own political habits allow me fo find some of Mr Wrights offense speach to be merely colorful ways of presenting aspects of the American experience not spoken of in polite white society. "Jesus like a black man in a white society" I couldn't conjure any offense in my mind with that phrase though the fellows on fox said the offense was obvious.
Actually Rowe on fox struck me as not only large in his whiteness but amazingly sure that Wright was irredemably politially incorrect. Are there people in America so naïve not to know what Wright is speaking about? Or should I just ask just how much gratitude must a black candidate express for the gifts and concessions provided by the cival rights movement to remain politically correct?
.
So one can collect examples of ministers saying garbage. Now there is also a thrill to allowing words to fly in free association. Ministers can be swept along in the rush. I am quite sure that audiences not only tolerate such flights but can enjoy and encourage them as they can be caught up in the flight themselves.
Intoxicated flight in words can sometimes be like other forms of intoxications. They may not look so good in sober retrospect.
I am thinking of course about the newly famous Mr Wright. I have listened to various pieces of his words presented by sanctimonious political enemies all claiming to wonder what moral monster says these things. Now there are a couple things I heard which struck me as drunken phrases now seen sober. Intentioanal aids is inexcusable bad thought. I do not think moral fingerpointing is a clear sort of thought response to 9/11. However I do remember ministers of a variety of stripes making that response, each choosing there favorite moral whipping boy. I think that a shallow kneejerk excuse for procticle thought.
On the other hand my own political habits allow me fo find some of Mr Wrights offense speach to be merely colorful ways of presenting aspects of the American experience not spoken of in polite white society. "Jesus like a black man in a white society" I couldn't conjure any offense in my mind with that phrase though the fellows on fox said the offense was obvious.
Actually Rowe on fox struck me as not only large in his whiteness but amazingly sure that Wright was irredemably politially incorrect. Are there people in America so naïve not to know what Wright is speaking about? Or should I just ask just how much gratitude must a black candidate express for the gifts and concessions provided by the cival rights movement to remain politically correct?
.