Basic HTML Version
-8-
To be a "strong" leader, is it really necessary to be militant,
abrupt, aloof, autocratic, authoritarian and opinionated? Is it always
necessary to convey by either words or actions very clearly "who's in
charge"? Is it necessary to look on the negative side, search first of
all for the trouble, the problems because it is certain, in the person's
mind, that they are indeed there. Why should any feel that such behavior
is "STRENGTH"?
This concept runs parallel to the notion of many about what con
stitutes "strong meat" in sermons, Bible Studies or classroom lectures.
To many people "strong meat" is often associated with volume--how loud
the speaker shouts--and/or along with the volume, the use of exhortive,
corrective, admonishing words that generally convey to the hearer the
reaction that he is being rebuked, corrected, disciplined, kicked in the
seat of the pants or bawled out good and proper. Generally this kind of
mentality or attitude is coupled with a very clear delineation of "who's
in charge" and who is '·under authority."
Frankly, I categorically reject both these concepts. Oh, to be sure,
there is a place and time for firmness, for discipline, for precipitous
and sudden action or reaction, for rebuke and correction--even at times
for rebuke before others in a peer group or association to serve as an
example for all. Yes, as every minister should know there is a· time
for volume, strong words, controlled emotional speaking and gesticulating.
However, to equate obstinate, autocratic behavior or volume and rebuke
as the principle elements of strength in leadership or strong meat in
preaching is patently ludicrous.
I, and I'm sure you, have heard sermons that left your head aching
and your mind reeling due to the loud, intense, driving exhortive nature
of the delivery. Comments were probably even heard from sincere, well
rneaning, loyal and teachable listeners about how valuable, how strong,
how meaty the sermon was. But, when the content of the message was
noted, isolated from the bluster and the volume, precious little of
any lasting substance was said.
Wouldn't a sermon of substance, well-organized and developed, bring
ing out one salient point after another dealing with, for example, some
aspect of Christ's ministry, the meaning of the Gospel, the destiny and
purpose of man, the spirit of man, the meaning and application of God's
law, or many, many other poignant subjects, with controlled volume,
fitting and subdued gestures and animation, encouraging, uplifting and
motivating comments inspiring the hearers, be much "stronger meat"?
As an experienced speaker I know I am able, if I wish, to choose
just the right words, say them a particular way and draw dramatic,
immediate response, probably ovation, yet I know that I may not have
given any "strong meat" -- I may not have given any "weak meat" either-
I didn't give any meat at all but rather dished a.it a good "helping" of
pablum which to my adult taste is revolting, thoroughly unsatisfying
"mush."
Mr. Herbert Armstrong has always set an outstanding example of
effective speaking. To be sure he can �peak with power, volume and
correction,but also he can and generally does speak with emphasis on
substance and content while at the same time saying it like he means it.
Back to strength of leadership and management. If I felt I had
to rely on authority--"do you know who's in charge around here"