"A Christian journalists's duty is to inform, edify and even entertain; but even more important, it is to reveal to his reader the face of Christ."
"In purerly practical terms the Christian journalist should never make the mistake of undermining his credibility by overstating his case with exaggerated generalizations that don't follow from the evidence. Let understatement trump overstatement."
"At the very least, don't come across as frustrated and never rant."
Here are three principles of writing that Field gleans from Chesterton.
"First, his writing - no matter how serious the subject matter - was always suffused with Christian joy and hope. Second, a detached playfulness always marked his writing and he was always personal, never taking himself too seriously. Third, although Chesterton was not averse to a little good-hearted ridicule, the emphasis was always on 'good-hearted'; he was never vindictive. And most important, within his own style and personality, Chesterton's writing comes from a place of such child-like innocence that it always manages to be a beautiful reflection and reminder of the Lord's own voice."How often are your posts and comments joyous and hopeful? Do your fisks show detached playfulness? Do you take yourself too seriously? Are you vindictive or do you remind your readers of God's voice? I don't know about you, but I'm guilty on all counts.
Feeling rather ashamed, I'll end this tome with some words of wisdom from Tom Kreizberg.
"Given the choice, I personally would rather be in a Church with confused, ignorant, and overly protective troublemakers than with well-catechized and theologically educated people who don't give a rat's ass about the confused and the ignorant."
"But I'm not given that choice. I'm told there's only one Church, and what ultimately determines whether I personally am in that one Church is how well I love others, the troublemakers and the self-satisfied included."
"At this point, I don't do that very well. So either everyone is going to have to become a whole lot more lovable, or I am going to have to become a whole lot more loving."
I know the feeling, Tom.
Funky Dung
Comments 11
Actually, I though Archbishop Lefebvre was pretty funny.
+0
Posted 20 Feb 2006 at 5:15 am ¶At first I did, too. I think he crossed a line, though. I'm not the only one that feels that way (and, no, they're not limited to those insulted by him).
+0
Posted 20 Feb 2006 at 11:12 am ¶This looks terrific! Lots of good ideas to help promote civility, something our society needs A LOT more of. I've only been able to skim the post so far, but look forward to giving it a close read. And I'm definitely linking to it from my own fledgling blog. This one's a keeper!
+0
Posted 21 Feb 2006 at 12:10 am ¶I wonder if "cyber-disinhibition" has its counterpart in "cyber-intimacy." Many people in chat rooms, for instance, experience a sense of knowing their conversation partner far more closely than is actually the case. I once knew a woman who met a man on a Christian internet dating site (in itself not a bad way to meet someone in a world where traditional social institutions have eroded). They exchanged emails and instant messages for months and fell deeply in love — only to encounter blatant differences in temperament, etc., when they met in person.
This doesn't just happen in dating relationships, either. Married people have been known to engaged in emotional affairs — often just as wounding as sexual affairs — with someone online.
+0
Posted 22 Feb 2006 at 12:02 am ¶I'd love to see some substantiation to the claim that all sarcasm is "evil" or ungodly.
Found you through a link at Adrian's blog.
+0
Posted 22 Feb 2006 at 4:37 am ¶Welcome, to the conversation, centuri0n.
"I'd love to see some substantiation to the claim that all sarcasm is "evil" or ungodly."
I don't recall saying that. That'd be a pretty odd thing for a sarcastic guy like me to say.
+0
Posted 22 Feb 2006 at 12:16 pm ¶BTW, I dig your gravatar. You Pyromaniacs have some cool graphic design mojo working for you.
+0
Posted 22 Feb 2006 at 12:59 pm ¶Very nicely done.
I don't know that we ever had the plot, I know we wish we did, or that we'd like to believe we do. This is a come back to post, lots of good reminders in it, thank you!
May I point something out?
I don't know that Christian journalist has any more meaning that Christian lawyer, hydro worker, Wal-Mart clerk or Christian IT specialist. Journalist, lawyer, hydro worker, Wal-Mart clerk and IT specialist who are Christians is more realistic.:^)
+0
Posted 22 Feb 2006 at 6:21 pm ¶sarcasm - (noun)- witty language used to convey insults or scorn -the lowest form of wit.
'nuff said.
+0
Posted 22 Feb 2006 at 6:31 pm ¶Thanks for dropping by, Bene. I'm glad you like the post.
+0
Posted 22 Feb 2006 at 6:59 pm ¶Well said. Much needed. Thanks!
I second Bene's definition of sarcasm. While it is certainly not always wrong to use, and sometimes even needed, it is often just the first blunt instrument that comes to hand.
Great post!
+0
Posted 17 Mar 2006 at 4:58 pm ¶Trackbacks & Pingbacks 13
Since I re-entered the blogosphere last fall, I've been collecting links to blog posts about blogging as a sort of anthology for personal use. I didn't start out to make it comprehensive or even a "best of" collection; it's just examples of writi …
Post a Comment