“…as in most of my other books, there are places here where I have gone out of my way to be provocative, mischievous, and unclear, reflecting my belief that clarity is sometimes overrated, and that shock, obscurity, playfulness, and intrigue (carefully articulated) often stimulate more thought than clarity.”
After having thought about this for a while I am curious to hear what the readers in blog land think. As a teacher I wrestle with how much to lay out there for my listeners. Should a teacher or preacher or writer "bottom line" everything so that there is no possible question to his hearer what he/she thinks the material he/she is teaching, preaching, or writing about means? I've heard some call this placing the cookies on the bottom shelf so that everyone can reach them.
Or would you rather have "provocative, mischievous, and unclear" or "shock, obscurity, playfulness, and intrigue" or even just narrative to help generate thought while in most cases leading you to some good conclusions.
Jesus, when he taught, didn't always lay out explicit details. He didn't say "the Kingdon of Heaven is..." He said "the Kingdom of Heaven is like ..." and then would give examples that sometimes his hearers had a hard time interpreting.
What do you think?
1 comment:
I think it depends on the audience, or readers, and what you're trying to achieve. If your goal is to stimulate thought and ideas, then maybe the more 'cloaked' approach is better. However, if your aim is to communicate truth in hopes of a respond, then I would think it better to clear out the bottom shelf for the cookies and then add a glass of milk.
Post a Comment