The Pedagogue

2015-10-20T16:50:00.003-04:00

Retro-, intro-, circum-spect
One more spect and I swear, I'm wrecked
Exhausting, this honesty and trueness I hallow
Eating and idleness are my way to shallow

Tell me what to do, and I swear I'll do it.
Duty without guidance is torture and blindness.

Inspir-, transpir-, machin-ations
The active self with caffeine vibrations
I don't wanna work, I don't wanna think
Just give me some love and a dish in the sink

Got Burned

2014-11-25T07:50:00.000-05:00

Checked the gap. Tested the wires.
Distributor's good and the plug still fires.

Fuel pump's pumping; got half a tank.
Everything's ready from the key to the crank.

Belts on right, the battery's good.
Ain't a darn thing wrong under the hood.

Filled up a jerry, stuck a match to watch it burn.
Fool thought external combustion makes a motor turn.

The more things change...

2014-10-30T23:09:00.001-04:00

I said things just aren't the same
Not like when I did it.
I was late to bed and weary
No complaints, I hid it.

No one wants to take a chance
They're resting on their hand
They're repeating everything
They have no promised land.

When I did it things were better
Everything was different
I colored right between the lines
Except for when I didn't.

Now you, you would understand this
That risks are not for taking
And rules that are made to make things
Stay the same are not for breaking.

You, you sound a lot like them
The others that I fear
But even worse you're one of us
A someone that is near.

Hide it then, do not complain
Be weary and to bed
Just the same, then, do it
Like I did it then, he said.

In between

2014-10-13T21:10:00.001-04:00

From hot, sweet breath to stutter'd gasps. She shifts -

anon, I'll you see when I 'scape the lee -

as one from self-assured contentedness and lifts

the veil. Short shrift and vague indemnities

her indian imitations are. With her
I mourn the last and few; dry and musky
does not a pregnant month foretell, it's true.
This, the offering waved, we gain horizons.

At the scent a horse will wake and mosses
hold the granite fast. Since the buyers leave
the basest traders flee and hinterlands
once bare are left to breathe.

Fixed intelligence

2014-10-04T20:47:00.000-04:00

Never scaled the ivory towers -
decided he couldn't
and drifted for awhile.

Found a place with cerulean collars and rolled-up sleeves
that suits oceanic egos and tidal intellects,
where straight-shooters trump straight-laced in most hands.

Twelve hours is a long time to do anything,
and you tell each other you've earned the chip on your shoulder.
And truly, you have.

Hard time in the Brick:
Trails of paperwork, training that missed the point,
and clean faces with brown noses garnering all the praise.

So maybe you lowered your own expectations and,
with them, your integrity.
Perhaps the third grade spelling bee is not reason enough
to abandon posture, balance, and civility.

Sweat does not interpose between God and man,
Nor does toil replace virtue.
They are the curse, not the salve.

Giving Graciously

2014-10-04T17:07:00.002-04:00

One should give gifts, compliments and hospitality generously. This, I suspect, is the beginning of moving beyond yourself. One may also receive gifts, compliments and hospitality graciously. This is an exercise in humility and is one I've had opportunity to practice repeatedly. This is a less-taught, but widely reinforced social notion. It's also an act of moving beyond the self, in that your self-sufficiency is sidelined in order to allow another to give of themselves. I suspect the lesser-known cousin of these interconnected virtues is gracious giving.

Giving, especially that which is extravagant or cannot be reciprocated, serves not only to humble the receiver, but to highlight social difference. In itself, this has the potential to form strong bonds between people. Take the example of child and parent - no child can ever begin to repay their parent for the sacrifice and generosity they have received. In fact, to suggest they can would be tantamount to a break in relationship. I am indebted to David Graeber for this idea (Debt: The First 5000 Years). And the examples abound of inequality rightly being a foundational prerequisite to kinship. However, when the relationships are not akin to standard kinship lines, such as in direct peers, the exchange is different.

If the unequal, extravagant giving/receiving is not accompanied by an equally deep relationship that is embraced by both parties, the effect is to highlight social or economic difference. It may even be an insensitive show of power that humiliates the receiver, and may even lead to a break in relations.

The girl refuses to receive a gift from a suitor, because she believes some strings may be attached. The friend blanches at the generous offer, but receives it and feels eternally uncomfortable and indebted. The recipient of charity hangs head, accepts what they know they cannot provide for their family, and tries to look thankful. Saving face is impossible.

To sum, it is as incumbent on the giver to be gracious (or even restrained) as it is for the recipient to show gratitude. That this is not discussed may be symptomatic of the fact that those on receiving end cannot allow themselves to even verbalize their reactions, should they be seen as ingrates. That we so strongly expect expressions of gratitude and even an attitude of humility on the part of recipients is telling; we are, to some degree, intentionally making a show of position and expect that others should recognize it.

Truly, the children of God have received the greatest gift, that of adoption into His family. And for that we are eternally grateful and it draws us to Him. In 1 John, we are told that the proper response to this great and unrepayable love of God is to love others and obey God's will. "See what love the Father has given us, that we should be called children of God; and that is what we are...We know love by this, that he laid down his life for us—and we ought to lay down our lives for one another. 17 How does God’s love abide in anyone who has the world’s goods and sees a brother or sister in need and yet refuses help?" (1 Jn 3) We are to help those in need, but as one that lays down their lives; this entails a complete surrender of future benefit or gratitude, of social recognition or even the chance to feel good about yourself after. James also addresses the matter in James 2. Inasmuch as he exhorts believers not to show partiality to those who are better dressed, the implicit expectation should also be that the believer also dress modestly so as not to encourage others to partiality and to show off to those less suave. It is not just that we refrain from judgement, but that we do what we can to keep others from judgement as well. Paul encouraged the Romans to abstain from causing others to stumble by eating meat sacrificed to idols (despite their freedom to do so); however, those he calls 'stronger' are not to respond by drawing away from the 'weaker'. Rather, they are to build relationships with the 'weaker', all in the name pursuing peace and the ensuing unity of the body it brings: "16 So do not let your good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not food and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 The one who thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and has human approval. 19 Let us then pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding."

I suspect the only thing preventing this being applied universally is pride on the part of givers. That we desire to give what we want, when we want, and how we want -- generosity on our terms -- is a consequence of the self-confidence and self-sufficiency we have because of our considerable ability to buy and spend. If we can be thoughtless and careless consumers of goods, so too can we be thoughtless consumers of the personal benefits of philanthropy and hospitality. "For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect." (Matt 5) Even those acting in love may be prone to insensitivity.

Let us give generously and graciously. Let us give in knowledge of the utterly undeserved ability to give we have. Let us mutually "be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ" (Eph 5:21).

Slow burn

2014-07-09T15:09:00.000-04:00

Ease back in an upturned wheelbarrow,
slump down and tip that cap over your eyes.
Nothing but the beat of the sun and a 2-stroke revving two yards over.
They only call them dog days that don't accept the heat
and shun the gentle sweat that comes when you saw and dig and lift.

Surely a kinship has always been of those familiar with such labours
A deep knowing of earthy things -
of tearing down and putting together;
of planting, pruning, and harvesting;
and none of it metaphorical.

Of eyeballing, jimmy-rigging, and other degrees of precision;
Of old dogs, young muscles, and new tricks.
Yes, ease back and take a load off as only those that bear one can.

The sound of words

2014-06-23T23:24:00.004-04:00

Greta Garbo had a doozy.
A beauty by any name is just as sweet.
Alpha, beta, Garbo, delicious,
alliterative, and say-able;
a name that any house may hold.

M. Night Shmayalan is too hard to say
To top it off, it's not articulated as it appears,
like Wednesday, but not nearly so endearing.
Wednesday is a grey sweater, 63,
and not of much consequence.
But we all know Wednesday.

Ben Franklin had the right spell
when he gave hiz reezons for fonetiks
I'm not so easily put off by letters, though.
In fact, the crude pragmatics of z's where s's once were
distracted from the main, which is to say:
The pronouncements of an artful tongue are beauteous
without recourse to their ensymbolment.

Regret(s)

2014-06-23T11:33:00.000-04:00

"I would rather feel contrition than know how to define it." - Imitation of Christ

Bent to pick up a nickel, brought to the ground
The forces of the earth, magnetic, pull down
A moment begat another of disappointment
Now I'm soothing my regret with a timeworn ointment

Two strokes on a page, lost will, in the ledger
It's a new page, but you know you're a repeat offender
Left the meek - when you were weak - by the side of the road
Guess that's why they call it abandon; can't say you didn't know

Whatever floats your boat is a ship to scuttle
And unrequited love is an urgent rebuttal
Every stick in the mud is reduced by a sickle
Should've known better than to pick up a nickel

Calling

2014-06-14T20:57:00.001-04:00

"It is vanity to wish for long life and to care little about a well-spent life." - Imitation of Christ

Just found my calling, and I've been working here four years
Ever the optimist, the capitalist
The enterprising will,
I almost missed it.

There's no leveraging these skills.
This is it. Today is my big chance, again.
Exert 146 pounds of force, no less,
And be moved by the First Mover.

Well-read

2014-05-06T21:33:00.001-04:00

Read wide without guidance
Like a squirrel, bulged cheeks
Devouring and hoarding
And the cache still reeks

Lusting and eager
More terrible than earnest
He's fracking the seams
To stoke up the furnace

Overseeing the pour
Forgetting the forms
The idea is dead
While the body's still warm

Each phrase like a key
On a ring in his head
"Boy's all right, and
He seems well-read."

Yep

2014-04-04T20:36:00.001-04:00

Can't really tell if he's a philosophe or uniquely dim.
Pithy ejaculations of candour, insight and confusion.
The kind of guy you'd eat soup with.
He's much more interesting than people usually are,
and not only because he's an enigma or strangely entertaining.
He'd never harm a fly or even give em sass.
Even dogs know he's a good guy.
Word gets around, I guess.

This wooden house

2014-04-03T22:06:00.001-04:00

Coldplay said "I wanna live in a wooden house, where makin more friends would easy."
It sounds good and made me feel warm and hopeful.
But I guess it must be a metaphor,
Cuz this house is my only new friend, and a leaky one at that.
Should've bought a hot tub.

The Ocean

2014-04-03T22:02:00.001-04:00

I hate the ocean
It's far too wide
That black, salty expanse
of weeds and hidden animals
and endless horizons.
That's not my domain.
A lake is much better
if I see smoke of a distant campfire
then I know I'm not alone
Not like the Pacific.
And don't get me started on heaven.

2012-01-04T12:12:00.000-05:00

Rolled, tossed about by doubt
And certain there's no certain way out
With faith that falls just to rise
I hear the fools profess to be wise
Fearing heaven, for meeting the hidden
God is one and the same as being stricken
Fear, duty, loneliness, pride
Direction, introspection, the faith inside
At the end of this road absurd
It's good
To know that, in the beginning
was the Word

WWJD? Pt. 2 - Should we do it?

2011-07-05T14:58:00.001-04:00

My advice: read the first five chapters for a neat reading of the gospels. For a systematic ethical rendering of Jesus or of a complete modern theological ethic, look elsewhere.
Disappointed, I must say that the remainder of The Politics of Jesus did very little in the way of offering distinct ethical advice. The majority of the 2nd half of the book explains that Paul and Jesus did not, in fact, disagree in their view of ethics and that the early church did not see Jesus as a spiritual guide whose teachings were irrelevant to making political and economic decisions. While essential in the flow of his argument, Yoder lost me with these points; he gets into detailed and even contrived counter-arguments against the supposed status quo Christian ethic that lack flow and are less than clear on his own position. This brings us two-thirds of the way to applying a social exegesis of Jesus to a modern social ethic. Yoder will not even say that we should follow Jesus' ethic as he described it, but rather discredits all the arguments to the contrary and leaves it up to the reader. It is certain that he had a particular version of the Mennonite pacifist stance in mind and was only somewhat concerned with veiling that. He is quite clear that Christians should not join in war, but allows room for policing and judicial authority. There is an interesting bit on the willing subjection to government with full knowledge that one is actually free not to do so (the whole 'freedom through chosen submission' argument). His reasoning is sometimes confusing and even seemingly contradictory. He sometimes supported acting as an agent of change for social or economic ends, sometimes not, and the reasons for each situation are anything but systematic.
Overall, a good book with many interesting readings of the NT. The relatively clear thesis, however, is not executed in an organized or even consistent fashion. He proposed to build a bridge from exegesis to ethics, and it is my estimation that he did not do it clearly. A fair amount of synthesis of his various chapters may translate into clearer principles but I half-expected him to do that for the reader. The flavor of the book changed multiple times and it really reads like a handful of related essays edited together with a lengthy new introduction.

WWJD? Pt. 1 - What did he do?

2011-06-28T21:56:00.001-04:00

At long last I have delved into John H. Yoder’s The Politics of Jesus: Vicit Agnus Noster. And it is as good as I thought it would be. Yoder treads carefully on ground that many of us have, unfortunately, trodden haphazardly and with little care. Perhaps it seems obvious that a proper exegesis of the life and words of Jesus in the Gospels would come to affect the Christian’s social, economic or political ethic. However, that is a dangerous leap to miscalculate. That is not to say that, once taken seriously, bridging Jesus and our ethics will not bring about danger or the propensity to go about saying dangerous things. Should we breach the status quo, we must consider first whether we are: proof-texting a homemade radicalism or mimicking the true ethics of Jesus. The radical Christianities proffered by the ‘emergent’ and post-modern realms may very well coincide with the latter while triggering a whole generation of ahistorical ingrates to do the former. I’ve been fired up by revolutionary talk, but without really knowing the ideas behind the ideology, I’m like a jihadist motivated by peer pressure – thrilled, killed, but not self-willed. So what were the social, economic and political ethics of Jesus? Should that be read as universally normative? How would someone apply the ethics of Jesus in our context?

Read the book if you really want a good introduction to the topic. Perhaps I’m impressed too easily, but there’s a few game changers. Most Christians accept that the life and teaching of Jesus is normative on some level to us, whether or not that means crucifying yourself on Easter (like a few Filipino Christians do) or just following the Golden Rule. So there are 2 questions we must consider: a) Exegetically - What exactly did he say and do? AND b) Ethically - On what level must/should we mimic that?

What did he do?

a) It’s often said that the Pharisees and the multitudes and even the disciples misunderstood Jesus’ mission on earth as political in nature, whereas Jesus single-mindedly lived his life as a working out of prophecy for the express spiritual purpose of forgiving the sins of mankind. Yoder argues that the contemporaries of Jesus merely misunderstood the nature of his social/economic/political agenda. However, Yoder also assents to the immaterial and spiritual agenda, so to speak, of the Incarnation. So it is not that the message of Jesus is spiritual OR political, but spiritual AND political. Using the text of Luke (which is often taken as explicitly rejecting the political interpretation of Jesus’ mission), Yoder shows how the birth, life, teachings and death of Jesus are inherently political. People didn’t want to kill him because they misunderstood him. They didn’t want to kill him because he broke the Sabbath. They wanted to killed him precisely because they did understand him and how dangerous his political ethos was to the status quo. In fact, from the temptation in the desert to the garden of Gethsemane, Jesus is portrayed as having to come to grips with how the multitudes will implement his kingdom. He prayed the Father would remove ‘this cup’ from him – why? Was he only afraid of death or was there some alternative way the story could end that Jesus was not only considering but praying for? Moments later Peter draws his sword to protect Jesus, who asks rhetorically ‘Shall I not drink the cup the Father has given me?’ It seems Peter and Jesus may have had the same thing in mind (armed insurrection), but only one had the self-control to choose the high road. The social, political and religious order in Judea were broken and Jesus spent most of his time talking about that and showing how that could change. Many saw him as leading the way to massive reforms and, certainly, he intended his teachings to lead to exactly that. He willingly entered Jerusalem as a king, drove the moneychangers from the temple to assert his authority there and even asked the disciples to carry a sword. Still, remained true to his own ethical teachings. His kingdom would be different.

The Year of Jubilee - AD 26

Much of what Yoder goes on to explicate as the ethical agenda of Jesus involves the concept of the year of Jubilee. Jesus literally proclaimed a year of Jubilee in AD 26, asked his disciples to forgive others their debt as their debts had been forgiven them. He talked about money more than any other topic – this is common knowledge – but how he talked about money and what they meant to his audience, that’s the real interesting thing. Jesus made constant reference to all of the main aspects of the Year of Jubilee and their application in his context. That he came to proclaim release to the captives need not be spiritualized. That he counselled the landless peasants to make friends with their enemies on the way to debtor’s court is not without reason. The parables about absentee landowners and wise stewards don’t just have timeless lessons to offer. Jesus was a bit of a political pundit.

More to come…

Gendered church pedagogy, part 2: Metaphors

2011-02-16T10:27:00.003-05:00

A comment by groundbeneathyourfeet.blogspot.com reminded me that metaphors are a strongly gendered pedagogical tool. Identifying specific metaphors is more helpful than my previous, general comment on gendered analogies. I think that by speaking of metaphor we are not departing from meta-pedagogy; indeed, a metaphor like war or business can be so pervasive that we take on roles and act and speak as the metaphor would dictate. These metaphors are, in part, influenced by gender and are most definitely received differently by each gender.

Biblical metaphor
Of course, this sends us in the direction of a discussion about the nature of inspiration; has God ordained both the medium and the message, does man's fingerprint on the book tilt it, does culture and place add something to it that we are free to strip away and replace with a more 'relevant' culture and place? I ask, because I believe that the war metaphor is perhaps one of the most commonly used in the Bible-it's no mistake that the church employs it. Of course, it may be rivaled by the image of the bride of God/Christ (adulterous Israel, the bride of Christ, etc); I would, however, place that metaphor in the masculine category as well. The notion of the stained or unstained bride, with ideas of virginity and cleanliness, pining for the groom - favours the groom; this is to be expected, as the groom stands for God, but I wonder if the metaphor favours the male so much that men either put themselves on the God side of the equation, or when that doesn't work, externalize the analogy as something to be observed because it is unpalatable to be placed in the vulnerable position of the pining bride. I know that's my reaction. And that's a biblical metaphor, heck, that's one of Jesus' metaphors. How much more must gendered, man-made metaphors in church teaching taint our understanding of the teaching, the church and our faith?

Man's metaphor - business
The business metaphor is the most ubiquitous one, forged by men and parasitically presuming the place of doctrine, defining the role of laity and leader, and surreptitiously knocking the pillars of faith aside and standing in their place to support the roof over God's house. It may be assuming to place 'business' in the masculine category of metaphors, but the numbers-oriented, categorizing, compartmentalizing, results-driven church, if anything, is a 'doer' of the Word (which I have identified as the more masculine). Even in the face of a slowly-changing world of business, the undeniable dominance of men in higher mgmt and in the development and maintenance of the Western, capitalist business ethos (and, indeed, logos) leads one to almost unquestionably place the metaphor in said category. So, it would stand to reason, that if such a metaphor holds such sway in the development of, pedagogy and group hermeneutic of teaching in today's Western church, that men and women must experience this differently. In a shallow church, where this metaphor and the seemingly opposing existence of emotionalism and experiential Xianity stand as the most dominant forces, it would be anything but surprising that the church would be full of: Women who simultaneously do their duty as employees while secretly seeking for passionate experiences & Men who, turned off by the 'femininity' of experience, either immerse themselves in 'running the business' or just punch-in, punch-out and never experience or live a real faith of any kind. If church is a business, you either run the business or you work for the business; either way, you treat it like a business - but in running it you are able to fool yourself that your busy-ness is related to having a faith. It's why the word 'commitment' is so popular; the word 'commitment' is an essential tool in the business metaphor's kit. {See how I used a metaphor to describe a metaphor? Either I'm creative or I lack the vocabulary to describe something without metaphor.}
Perhaps that is the true test of one's understanding of and Spirit-led following of the Truth - can we explain it without metaphor? Do we understand our faith, the church, Christ's teachings without resorting to metaphor? Christ himself used metaphor constantly, but either explained his 'real' point later or allowed that the Spirit would draw it out later - the point is that the metaphor was only a tool.

The ease of metaphor and analogy has led us to build the church, our faith, our doctrine in the image of our metaphors. For the congregation, this pedagogy is flawed and will lead not only to a misunderstanding of doctrine, but a misplaced confidence that we truly 'get' what Xianity is all about just because we have a deep resonance with the metaphors our teachers used to build our idea of Xianity.

When I speak of 'metaphor', I switch between the proper idea of a metaphor and other, related, literary tools of comparison like analogy [which may use metaphors], allegory [an extended metaphor], synecdoche & metonymy [types of metaphor], or parable [a more removed form of allegory]. The effect of using any and all of these, repeatedly, over time transforms business & business-concepts into absolute metaphors, which means that business-concepts or terms come to take on their own meaning with reference to the church, removed from their original meaning, though their original meaning spawned the genesis of the metaphors that formed the absolute metaphor. A related, but different, event is the conflation of meaning in 2 or more uses of a word; for instance, when the current usage of 'mission statement' in business and 'mission' in church come to mean something comprised of both concepts, though they were previously unrelated other than in their use of a particular word. It's akin to, but different from, reading the properties of 'dynamite' into the use of the Greek dunamis, meaning power, just because 'dynamite' indirectly uses that Gr. root. Of course, the use of dunamis would not intend to convey the explosive power of dynamite, but that precise comparison has been preached repeatedly. That's an exegetical fallacy, easily identified by scholars, but nevertheless commonplace and misleading in churches. In the same sense, but in greater magnitude, absolute metaphors like business, though identifiable through close study and observation, hold considerable sway in the church teacher's weekly exegesis, nay eisegesis. In fact, they are so invasive that the exegete is entirely unaware that they are importing them into their hermeneutic. What they assume to be faithful analyses of text are, in fact, syntheses of the text and the absolute metaphor. Perhaps the faithful scholar is, however, somewhat aware of his eisegesis, but continues in it precisely because of its pedagogical ease and the congregational response to such simplifications (read bastardizations) of doctrine. I've knowingly done it out of ease, due to the press of time, or to indulge the hearer. It is difficult and unpopular to strip such window-dressing away, to even acknowledge it as such. But so much rests on this.

The gendered church pedagogy: Doers, hearers of the Word

2011-02-14T11:36:00.000-05:00

I'm reading blogs and education articles about the developmental differences between boys and girls. I haven't done the research, but I'm certain that the nature/nurture debate is central to differences in findings. Certainly we can acknowledge observable differences, regardless of the cause or source, between girls and boys, men and women, that persist into adulthood. Such differences, acknowledged, change the way schools are run; extending such views into adult institutions, however, is culturally forbidden. Charges of sexism would abound - and yet, strangely, many churches are somewhat immune to such charges (at least internally). Men's and women's groups abound, PromiseKeepers and Ladies bible studies, are found, unquestioned, in Protestant churches everywhere. I care less about the ethics of this than the pedagogical implications for such segregations (or the lack of such segregations in certain churches) and all other forms teaching the church engages in, segregated or not.

Questions

How 'gendered' is the pedagogy of any given program/format/medium and how does that influence an individual and group hermeneutic? Is a gendered response to that hermeneutic important or merely interesting? This is not about feminist theology. This is not about the role of women in the church. It is about the accepted forms and media for teaching within the church and whether these have implicit or explicit pedagogical biases toward a gender. If they do, how does this affect each gender's reading of the Bible and understanding of faith matters? And if I may be so bold, can we prescribe changes to ameliorate pedagogical weaknesses that either distort the Message or that impair the ability of a given group (gender) to assimilate the Message into their (gendered) framework/worldview?

Are these questions worth asking?

When we read about 'doers' of the Word, is there an inherent masculine expectation buried within our reading of 'do'? When we think about 'hearing' or 'receiving' the Word, do we read something feminine into that? Do we shrug off certain beliefs and practices because 'that's for women', but couch it in other terms like 'experiential', 'emotional', 'relational', etc? It is convenient to divide the Bible up into the part for sick people, the part for conspiracy theorists, the part for do-gooders, the part for those with bad self-esteem, the part for women, the part for men, the part for children, the part for Pentecostals, the part for sabbatarians....Is it possible that this mental division reflects pedagogical practice and/or vice versa? There are pragmatic rationale for dividing men and women into different groups for bible study, but is there a biblical rationale for differing modes, methods or even content? Do men need football analogies, do women need relationship analogies? Is there anything distracting in 'gendering' our analogies or explanations? Is there a difference between a gendered understanding of doctrine and a gendered doctrine?

I realize I am addressing 2 things: First, the fact that the way things are taught may privilege or alienate a gender and/or be received differently by each gender, and Second, the topics of teaching that are chosen in segregated and non-segregated settings may privilege or alienate a gender and may de-emphasize or over-emphasize particular doctrines or concepts for gender's sake.

So many questions, so little motivation to answer them.

Luther to a discouraged preacher:

2011-02-08T19:28:00.000-05:00

" If Peter and Paul were here, they would scold you because you wish right off to be as accomplished as they. Crawling is something, even if one is unable to walk. Do your best. If you cannot preach an hour, then preach half an hour or a quarter of an hour. Do not try to imitate other people. Center on the shortest and simplest points, which are the very heart of the matter, and leave the rest to God. Look solely to his honor and not to applause. Pray that God will give you a mouth and to your audience ears. I can tell you preaching is not a work of man. Although I am old [48] and experienced, I am afraid every time I have to preach.
You will most certainly find out three things: first, you will have prepared your sermon as diligently as you know how, and it will slip through your fingers like water; secondly, you may abandon your outline and God will give you grace. You will preach your very best. The audience will be pleased, but you won't. And thirdly, when you have been unable in advance to pull anything together, you will preach acceptably both to your hearers and to yourself. So pray to God and leave the rest to him."