Latest / Reformed Thinking / Open-Air Preaching - Posture, Action, Gesture, Etc. [Second Lecture] | Charles Spurgeon

Transcript

Open-Air Preaching - Posture, Action, Gesture, Etc. [Second Lecture] | Charles Spurgeon · Reformed Thinking

• 0:00
  Welcome to the Deep dive. Today we're looking closely at
• 0:03
  some really interesting source materials.
• 0:05
  They get into something super practical, actually.
• 0:07
  Yeah, practical for anyone who speaks in public.
• 0:09
  Really, it's all about your physical presence, how you, you
• 0:12
  know, deliver your message. Exactly.
• 0:15
  And these sources we've got lecture notes, some excerpts, a
• 0:18
  guide, all focused on posture, action, gesture.
• 0:23
  A lot of it draws from classic thinking, especially useful I
• 0:25
  think in ministry contexts. Definitely these older insights
• 0:29
  have a lot to say. So our goal here, our mission,
• 0:31
  is pretty straightforward. We want to pull out the key
• 0:34
  ideas, the real Nuggets of wisdom from these texts.
• 0:37
  And maybe some surprising details too.
• 0:39
  Yeah, definitely. We'll look at what the sources
• 0:41
  really condemn, things they call grotesque or affected delivery,
• 0:47
  and then what they hold up as the ideal, which is, well,
• 0:50
  basically being natural. It's all about understanding
• 0:52
  what gets in the way of connecting with people and what
• 0:56
  actually helps build that connection when you speak.
• 0:59
  OK, so let's dive in. Where do these sources start?
• 1:01
  Well, interestingly, they jump right into the problems right
• 1:04
  off the bat. They focus on things to avoid.
• 1:08
  They don't start with the ideal posture, but with, you know, the
• 1:11
  pitfalls. OK, avoiding the bad stuff first
• 1:14
  makes sense, and the first big issue is what they term
• 1:18
  grotesque action. That's the term they use,
• 1:21
  grotesque action, and they mentioned this old author who
• 1:26
  apparently cataloged absurd gestures way back when, so this
• 1:30
  isn't exactly a new problem. OK, so what's on this list?
• 1:33
  How bad could it get? Oh, it's quite something.
• 1:35
  Gives you a real picture. Things like speakers holding
• 1:38
  their heads totally stiff, like locked to one side.
• 1:41
  Prismid thought. Pretty much.
• 1:42
  Or staring horribly, like actually trying to scare the
• 1:46
  audience. That's not ideal for community.
• 1:47
  No. Or twisting their mouths,
• 1:49
  working their chins constantly. The image given is like someone
• 1:53
  cracking nuts while trying to speak.
• 1:54
  OK, that's vivid. Yeah, and maybe a bit
• 1:56
  unsettling. Then there's using facial
• 1:59
  expressions to show insult, a contempt.
• 2:01
  They even name the apostate Julian as an example.
• 2:04
  Or gaping, mouth wide open like they might swallow everyone and
• 2:08
  sometimes apparently scattering. Foam, foam.
• 2:11
  OK, wow, that is definitely grotesque.
• 2:15
  Then there's making these constant, complex motions with
• 2:17
  fingers, like drawing math problems in the air or having
• 2:21
  hands that are just heavy, ponderous, stuck by fear, the
• 2:25
  source says. They look like they can move
• 2:27
  timber easier than gesture. Ponderous hands fixed by terror.
• 2:31
  The descriptions are quite potent.
• 2:33
  They really are laboring with the elbows like a Shoemaker,
• 2:37
  bodies unsteady like they're in a little boat cock boat, being
• 2:40
  cost around or just being awkward, unwieldy, described as
• 2:44
  sacks of tow trying to pass as men.
• 2:47
  Sacks of tow painted to look like men.
• 2:49
  These writers didn't hold back, did they?
• 2:51
  Not at. All and even jumping, appearing
• 2:53
  around. They call it the Fuller's dance.
• 2:55
  There's an old poet quoted saying these speakers express
• 2:57
  their wit with their feet. With their feet right now, some
• 3:00
  of this sounds almost comical, like historical caricature.
• 3:03
  But the sources say these kinds of things, these singular
• 3:06
  distracting gestures, they were still happening in their day.
• 3:09
  Absolutely. That's the point they make.
• 3:11
  The potential for just sort of physical weirdness when speaking
• 3:16
  in public seems to be a timeless challenge.
• 3:18
  OK, so it's not just random oddities.
• 3:20
  The sources actually break this down, don't they?
• 3:23
  They categorize these grotesque actions.
• 3:25
  They do they see patterns in the awkwardness specific types of
• 3:30
  pitfalls. So what's the first category?
• 3:32
  The first one they labeled the stiff and it's pretty much what
• 3:36
  it sounds like, speakers with no natural bend.
• 3:39
  You know, rigid joints, arms and legs moving like they're on iron
• 3:43
  hinges. Angular mechanical movements
• 3:46
  like a wooden dummy. Yeah, or like the limbs belong
• 3:48
  to some machine, sometimes just jerking up and down.
• 3:51
  The analogies are like legs being tongs or a linen horse
• 3:55
  arms like pokers. And the issue isn't just looking
• 3:57
  awkward, is it? It actually gets in the way of
• 3:59
  the message. Exactly.
• 4:00
  The sources say it distracts people.
• 4:02
  Even if the speech itself is admirable, the audience notices
• 4:06
  the awkwardness. Instead, they quote Philo saying
• 4:08
  people shouldn't notice these trifles, but then immediately
• 4:11
  counter that, well, people do notice.
• 4:13
  It creates a barrier. Anything that makes a listener
• 4:16
  think about you instead of the content is a problem.
• 4:19
  Is there a suggested fix for the stiff?
• 4:22
  It's pretty simple actually. They suggest maybe just any sort
• 4:26
  of physical exercise might help cure it, getting the body used
• 4:30
  to moving more fluidly. OK.
• 4:32
  So moving on from stiff to what's next in the mechanical
• 4:36
  issues? That leads right into the
• 4:38
  regular mechanical This is where speakers move like automatons.
• 4:42
  You know predictable measured movements, but they don't seem
• 4:46
  connected to any real thought or feeling.
• 4:48
  That kind of relentless repetition that just grinds you
• 4:51
  down as a listener. Precisely.
• 4:53
  It becomes wearying, and because it's not linked to the words, it
• 4:56
  feels meaningless. They give examples like a little
• 4:59
  soldier weather vane lifting one arm than the other.
• 5:02
  Predictable, right? Or just jerking the arms
• 5:04
  alternately. Or chopping one arm up and down
• 5:06
  constantly like it's powered by wind or or clockwork.
• 5:09
  Or just that monotonous hand movement up, down, up, down.
• 5:12
  There's this amazing observation from Ludovicus Cresolius back in
• 5:17
  1620. He described a preacher in Paris
• 5:20
  who just kept turning left, then right with the exact same
• 5:24
  moderate hand gesture at regular intervals.
• 5:27
  He compared him to blindfolded Babylonian oxen, just pacing
• 5:31
  back and forth. Wow, that sounds hypnotic in the
• 5:34
  worst possible way. You'd completely to now.
• 5:36
  You would, and the sources mentioned a style apparently
• 5:39
  common in the House of Commons at the time.
• 5:40
  Just this up and down, Bob at the back and hand like a waiter
• 5:43
  taking an order. They even had a little rhyme for
• 5:45
  it. Mr. Tat Tat, you must not pat
• 5:47
  your arguments flat. Patting arguments flat, got it.
• 5:51
  And the pump handle style fits here too.
• 5:52
  That repetitive arm jerking. Yes, exactly.
• 5:56
  Moore's rather harsh description of Lord Castlereagh is used
• 5:58
  here, comparing his speaking style to a pump.
• 6:02
  A slender wooden thing, awkward arms swaying, spouting a weak,
• 6:06
  washy, everlasting flood, Repetitive and empty.
• 6:09
  Then there's the saw like actions arm going back and
• 6:12
  forth. Top Sawyer cutting timber.
• 6:14
  Yeah, often leaning over the pulpit rail.
• 6:16
  They add a little joke that converted sawyers are welcome,
• 6:19
  but maybe leave the sawing motion behind.
• 6:21
  Fair enough. And then the Hammerman.
• 6:23
  Yes, the pounders. Smiting and pounding away.
• 6:27
  Ruining Bibles, dusting cushions.
• 6:29
  They quote Huda bras about the pulpit.
• 6:31
  Drum ecclesiastic. The point is the hammer away
• 6:34
  without sense or reason. It doesn't matter the topic.
• 6:37
  Trying to convey tenderness with hammer blows.
• 6:40
  Hammering tenderness seems like a mismatch.
• 6:43
  Just a bit. The source does distinguish
• 6:45
  between dull hammering and Hardy hammering, saying the Hardy kind
• 6:49
  is maybe preferable. If you must hammer.
• 6:52
  There's even this wild historical note about old Latin
• 6:55
  sermon manuscripts suggesting you shake a crucifix and hammer
• 6:58
  like Satan to gather your thoughts.
• 7:00
  That's quite a technique. The main take away for all these
• 7:03
  regular mechanical types is that endless repetition of 1 action
• 7:06
  is just tiring and meaningless. It makes the speaker seem less
• 7:10
  like a living person and more like, well, a machine.
• 7:13
  The movements feel intentional, sure, but totally disconnected
• 7:16
  from real feeling or the actual point being made.
• 7:19
  That lack of connection seems to lead into the next category they
• 7:22
  discuss, the laborious. Right.
• 7:25
  This is all about excessive effort.
• 7:27
  The speaker looks like they're doing incredibly hard work,
• 7:30
  Puffing, blowing. The sermon becomes a battle, A
• 7:34
  wrestling match. Like you're trying to physically
• 7:36
  knock down sin like an ox. That's one image they use.
• 7:40
  Or taking off your collar, your cravat, even your coat, the Wild
• 7:44
  Brothers style. They tell a story of an Irish
• 7:47
  Thunderer who actually broke a chair preaching broke a chair
• 7:51
  and a distinguished actor who converted and apparently kept
• 7:54
  striking the table or floor with his staff, the sources argue.
• 7:58
  Look, if your voice is strong enough, you shouldn't need all
• 8:00
  that. But they also suggest this can
• 8:01
  sometimes be tied to a person's background, a relic of the
• 8:05
  Preachers trade. Yes, sometimes you see echoes of
• 8:08
  former jobs. A wheelwright still making wheel
• 8:11
  motions, an engineer, a Cooper, a grocer weighing things, A
• 8:15
  butcher, well, knocking down a Bullock.
• 8:17
  The sources are maybe a bit more forgiving here, saying these are
• 8:20
  less blameworthy than some other awkward habits.
• 8:22
  But. It's not just former tradesmen,
• 8:24
  even educated gentleman can fall into this.
• 8:26
  Oh yeah, Beating the air, working hard, doing nothing.
• 8:30
  Sometimes, the sources say, their actions are even more
• 8:33
  hideous than the common folk. The list goes on.
• 8:36
  Beating carpets, chopping sticks, mincing sausage meat,
• 8:39
  padding butter, even poking fingers at people's eyes.
• 8:43
  It's quite a catalog of strenuous activity.
• 8:45
  It is, and the sources contrast it with easier, more dignified
• 8:48
  approaches. But interestingly, while it's
• 8:50
  laborious, they seem to hint it might actually be better than
• 8:54
  the pitfall. Which is the lazily dignified.
• 8:57
  Exactly. This is the speaker who seems
• 9:00
  totally self possessed, often seen rubbing their hands
• 9:03
  together. The description is priceless.
• 9:05
  Washing his hands with invisible soap in imperceptible water.
• 9:09
  Huh. I can picture that.
• 9:11
  And they deliver maybe quite ordinary ideas, but with this
• 9:14
  air of profound importance, as if they're outdoing the greatest
• 9:17
  preachers like Robert Hall or Chalmers.
• 9:19
  Pausing, looking around, expecting everyone to be hanging
• 9:22
  on there every. Perhaps not so profound word.
• 9:25
  It's that big manner, an attitude of authority mixed with
• 9:28
  a lot of self satisfaction. And the sources really dislike
• 9:32
  this one. They condemn it more strongly
• 9:34
  than the sweaty vigorous style. They say it might amuse people
• 9:38
  at first, but then it just discussed sensible listeners.
• 9:41
  So better to break a chair than wash your hands with invisible
• 9:44
  soap. That's the take away.
• 9:46
  Seems to be the hierarchy of offenses.
• 9:48
  Yeah, they do mention that college training sometimes help
• 9:51
  students get over this sort of inflated mannerism.
• 9:54
  OK, what are the last couple of categories in this section?
• 9:57
  Just two more main types here. First, the Marshall.
• 10:01
  This speaker looks like they're in a fight.
• 10:03
  Fencing stance. Yeah, or standing on guard,
• 10:05
  attacking some unseen foe, turning their head triumphantly
• 10:09
  after making a point like they just vanquished an enemy.
• 10:12
  OK. And the last one.
• 10:13
  The ill timed this is simply when the action is out of sync
• 10:17
  with the words. The hands lag behind so you see
• 10:19
  a chop or a thump, but it seems disconnected until you realize
• 10:23
  it actually matched something said a few seconds earlier that.
• 10:25
  Would be really strange to watch.
• 10:27
  Strange to the last degree. They call it puzzling.
• 10:31
  Odd. OK, that covers the main
• 10:32
  categories of grotesque actions, but the sources also list other
• 10:37
  things they just call altogether ugly or unseemly, right?
• 10:40
  Sort of a miscellaneous category of bad habits.
• 10:43
  Exactly. Things often seen on platforms
• 10:45
  generally, not just pulpits. So give us some examples here.
• 10:49
  What else should be avoided? OK, things like grasping a rail
• 10:53
  and dropping down really low while speaking called supremely
• 10:56
  absurd and a monstrous accompaniment to eloquence.
• 11:00
  Shrugging your shoulders, especially with serious points.
• 11:03
  Yes, they say. It makes the speaker look round,
• 11:05
  shouldered, even hunchbacked. They mention a specific,
• 11:08
  excellent preacher in Bristol who apparently did this, and
• 11:11
  they bring up Demosthenes again. His rather extreme cure,
• 11:15
  practicing in a narrow space with the spear hanging over his
• 11:18
  shoulder. If he shrugged, he got poked.
• 11:21
  A sharp remedy indeed. What about hand placement?
• 11:24
  Hands behind the back. That's the water Wagtail style.
• 11:26
  Hands behind the coattails makes a singular figure, apparently,
• 11:30
  and the flapping coattails don't add to the solemnity.
• 11:32
  Hands on hips. Akimbo that apparently savers of
• 11:36
  Billingsgate like the fish market sellers just preposterous
• 11:41
  as a general posture for speaking.
• 11:43
  Hands in pockets. Trousers pocket that's called
• 11:46
  outrageous suggests contempt for the audience for the subject.
• 11:50
  They mentioned seeing it at French railway stations.
• 11:52
  Maybe a common casual posture, but totally inappropriate for
• 11:55
  speaking. Setting a bad example, even if
• 11:58
  done by someone with a strong personality.
• 12:00
  Dom's hooked in the waistcoat arm holes.
• 12:02
  The Penguin style, yeah, often involves throwing the coat back
• 12:06
  to show off the vest. Maybe OK at a dinner or a local
• 12:09
  gathering if you're a man of some standing, they concede.
• 12:11
  But out of character for a public speaker or minister as a
• 12:15
  regular. Habit holding onto the coat
• 12:17
  lapels or near the. Collar.
• 12:18
  Yeah, running hands up and down. Clutch it like ropes suggests
• 12:21
  either you need to keep yourself under control or maybe just self
• 12:25
  satisfaction. Looking into your own palm.
• 12:27
  And sort of picking out ideas like their flowers growing
• 12:30
  there, The source mentioned seeing a good minister do this.
• 12:33
  The thoughts were fine, but the action was just ungraceful.
• 12:36
  Gently tapping the forehead. Like knocking on the mind's
• 12:39
  door. Seen as peculiar, not really
• 12:42
  forceful pointing. Into the hand or stabbing the
• 12:44
  air. Called an amusing freak of
• 12:46
  action. Scratching your head.
• 12:48
  They say it's maybe less advisable than just passing a
• 12:50
  hand over the brow, though perhaps just as natural
• 12:53
  sometimes. And one more accidental
• 12:56
  grotesqueness, like an outspread hand moving up and down with the
• 13:00
  sentence. Rhythm can be OK, if not
• 13:02
  monotonous, but it's easily prone to looking like putting
• 13:06
  the thumb of scorn to the nose of contempt.
• 13:08
  Apparently some speakers did this constantly without
• 13:11
  realizing. OK, that is quite the list of
• 13:13
  things not to do. A real minefield of potential
• 13:16
  awkwardness. But even with all that, the
• 13:18
  sources seem to save their harshest words for one
• 13:21
  particular style. They absolutely do.
• 13:23
  It's what they call the superfine style, and they just
• 13:26
  unload on this one utterly despicable and abominable.
• 13:29
  They call it worse even than common vulgarity.
• 13:32
  Worse than the water wagtail or the pocket stuffer?
• 13:34
  Wow. Yeah, because they see it as the
• 13:37
  very essence of vulgarity, but it's disguised, flavored with
• 13:41
  affectations and airs of gentility.
• 13:43
  It's the fakeness, the pretense, that really offends them.
• 13:46
  And they give a pretty detailed example, don't they?
• 13:48
  Oh yes, Roland Hill's sketch of a character named Mr. Taplash.
• 13:53
  He's the embodiment of it. Primped up, dressed in this
• 13:56
  overly finished style, perfect hair, powdered white by his
• 14:00
  Barber, smelling strongly of perfume.
• 14:03
  A civet cat. Makes a conceited skip into the
• 14:05
  pulpit. And he's not just there to
• 14:07
  deliver a message, he's there to display himself.
• 14:09
  His elegant self showing off a delicate white hand, maybe a
• 14:13
  diamond ring, handling a fancy scented handkerchief with great
• 14:17
  skill and art. Uses a smelling bottle too.
• 14:20
  Clearly, yes. Gives him a chance to flash the
• 14:22
  ring again and he even uses a glass, probably an opera glass,
• 14:25
  to sort of scan the fair part of his audience.
• 14:28
  Checking out the ladies. And giving them a simpering look
• 14:31
  and a graceful nod if he catches their eye.
• 14:34
  It's just this picture of utter vanity and affectation.
• 14:38
  They also quote Cowpers poem describing similar clergy,
• 14:41
  fussing with eyebrows, hair, using opera glasses, noticing
• 14:45
  the women. And the quote from Calper ends.
• 14:48
  Now this is Folsom and offends me more than in a church man
• 14:52
  slovenly neglect and rustic coarseness would.
• 14:55
  That's the crucial comparison. Simple, even rough honesty is
• 14:59
  far better than this polished phoniness.
• 15:01
  So manliness authenticity is preferred over this kind of
• 15:05
  effeminate elegance. Absolutely.
• 15:07
  They cite Cicero saying gesture should come from the military
• 15:10
  camp or the wrestling ring, not from dancers.
• 15:13
  Malena shouldn't be sacrificed. And they argue that ordinary
• 15:16
  working people, they just won't connect with teachers who are
• 15:18
  all starched and fine. They prefer someone Hardy,
• 15:21
  natural, what the source is called a brave negligence over
• 15:24
  FOP ish attention to appearance. There's that really telling
• 15:28
  story from Abby Mouwash about the converted Parisian worker.
• 15:31
  The preacher asked him what was most influential in his
• 15:33
  conversion. The man was honest, said the
• 15:35
  sermon itself had very little effect on him.
• 15:37
  So it wasn't the words. Not primarily.
• 15:40
  What really got through to him was the preacher's manner.
• 15:43
  Open, simple, good-natured. And specifically, he said above
• 15:47
  all, your I'll combed hair. His messy hair, That's
• 15:50
  fascinating. It sounds strange, but the
• 15:53
  reason was key. The worker said he hated priests
• 15:56
  who reminded him of a hairdresser's assistant.
• 15:57
  Too much focus on appearance, you know, pretense.
• 16:00
  But this preacher, he looked like he forgot himself on our
• 16:03
  behalf. That lack of self consciousness,
• 16:06
  that slightly unkempt look, it signaled authenticity.
• 16:09
  It showed his focus was on them, not himself.
• 16:12
  Wow, that really drives on the point about authenticity versus
• 16:15
  Polish. The sources insist that sensible
• 16:17
  men, sturdy workers, they utterly abhor foppery in a
• 16:21
  minister. Affectation just builds a wall,
• 16:23
  as they put it. Few years are delighted with the
• 16:25
  voices of Peacocks. All the external stuff,
• 16:28
  attitude, tone, dress, they become barricades.
• 16:31
  Exactly. Barriers to connection.
• 16:34
  The bottom line is we must talk like men if we would win men.
• 16:37
  They worried about a trend towards fussy millinery styles
• 16:40
  in churches precisely because it undermines this.
• 16:44
  They critiqued a certain stiff propriety, sometimes called
• 16:47
  dignity, that focused too much on decorum, pleasing persons of
• 16:50
  taste, but failed to be useful or reach ordinary people.
• 16:54
  They call it sickening affectation.
• 16:56
  There's one more story about a minister who couldn't preach
• 16:59
  because he'd misplaced his black kid gloves, The source dryly
• 17:03
  comments he was more fitted to stand behind a draper's counter.
• 17:07
  Affectation is labeled an effeminate vice to be avoided.
• 17:10
  And they bring back calper in my soul.
• 17:12
  I loathe all affectation. The conclusion on this point is
• 17:15
  blunt. All tricks, all stage effects
• 17:17
  are just unbearable when the message of the Lord is to be
• 17:20
  delivered. Better to be rugged and honest
• 17:22
  than fopish. It's worse to be just an actor,
• 17:25
  a performer, than to simply lack Polish.
• 17:27
  They mentioned that caricature contrast brimstone versus
• 17:30
  treacle. Robust truth versus sickly
• 17:33
  sweetness. And the final image is powerful.
• 17:36
  Seeing a Jacka dandy in the pulpit should evoke Jehu's
• 17:40
  reaction to Jezebel's painted face.
• 17:43
  Fling her down. A total rejection of the
• 17:46
  artifice. OK, so we've heard an awful lot
• 17:48
  about what not to do. The stiff, the mechanical, the
• 17:51
  laborious, the ugly, and especially the superfine
• 17:54
  affected style. After all that, what's the
• 17:56
  positive vision? What should physical delivery
• 17:59
  look like according to these sources?
• 18:01
  It boils down to 1 core principle really.
• 18:03
  The ultimate rule that covers everything else is be natural.
• 18:06
  Be natural. Sounds simple, but after hearing
• 18:09
  all the ways people can be unnatural, what does that really
• 18:12
  mean in practice? It means actively shunning any
• 18:15
  appearance of gesture that looks studied, practiced or put on,
• 18:18
  the sources say. Art is cold, only nature is
• 18:21
  warm. So it's about genuineness, being
• 18:23
  truthful and how you move, even if it's not perfectly smooth or
• 18:26
  you know. Cultivated exactly right, your
• 18:28
  mannerisms need to be your own, not some kind of polished lie
• 18:31
  affectation. Whether you're faking
• 18:33
  sophistication, faking passion, faking emotion, just mimicking
• 18:36
  someone else, it's fundamentally dishonest a practical.
• 18:39
  So the action shouldn't feel added on, it should come out of
• 18:43
  who you are and what you're genuinely feeling about the
• 18:45
  message. That's the idea.
• 18:46
  The speaker should be so true, so real, so genuinely and
• 18:50
  earnest about the subject that all those mechanical, artificial
• 18:53
  movements become impossible. Everything about the delivery
• 18:57
  should signal life, energy, focus, real zeal.
• 19:00
  And the purpose behind that zeal is critical, isn't?
• 19:03
  It absolutely crucial. It can't be about seeking honor
• 19:06
  for yourself. The driving purpose has to be be
• 19:09
  the glory of God and the genuine good of the people listening.
• 19:12
  And if that's the focus, then the physical delivery, the
• 19:15
  actions and posture, they should almost disappear.
• 19:18
  Yes, ideally they should be least likely to be observed.
• 19:21
  The goal is for the audience to be completely absorbed in the
• 19:24
  subject, in the message itself. If people start noticing or
• 19:27
  commenting on how you're moving, the sources say it's hindering
• 19:31
  the message's success. They do acknowledge that
• 19:33
  beginners might need to copy sometimes, but that's not the
• 19:36
  end goal. Right.
• 19:38
  Imitation might be a starting point, but the aim is to develop
• 19:41
  your own style. Be yourself.
• 19:44
  Authenticity just fits better, like wearing your own clothes
• 19:47
  instead of someone else's. Slavish imitation is dismissed
• 19:50
  as the practice of an ape. They also mentioned fear and
• 19:54
  nervousness, which is different from affectation but still a
• 19:57
  hindrance. Yes, being nervous can make you
• 19:59
  cramped awkward. But interestingly, the sources
• 20:02
  suggest that being awkward because you're genuinely
• 20:05
  nervous, maybe even making a few mistakes because of it, is
• 20:09
  actually better than being rigidly controlled out of fear.
• 20:12
  Better to blunder a bit than be completely stiff and unnatural
• 20:16
  because you're scared. So the main thing is to aim for
• 20:18
  being natural and fervent. That's the heart of it.
• 20:21
  If the message itself is substantial, so full of matter,
• 20:24
  so fervent and so gracious, the belief is that the audience will
• 20:28
  focus on that, on the word as they say, and not get hung up on
• 20:31
  the delivery method, the basket. It came in a natural manner,
• 20:35
  helps the speaker and the message connect directly with
• 20:38
  the listeners conscience. Well, this has been quite a
• 20:40
  journey through some really vivid, sometimes quite funny
• 20:43
  historical perspectives on public speaking delivery.
• 20:46
  The source is clearly warned against anything that feels
• 20:48
  artificial, mechanical or focus on the speaker themselves,
• 20:52
  calling it grotesque, ugly, even abominable.
• 20:55
  And in contrast, they lift up this ideal of natural, authentic
• 20:59
  expression delivery that keeps the attention squarely on the
• 21:02
  message and its purpose, which from their perspective is
• 21:05
  ultimately about God's glory and the good of others.
• 21:08
  So thinking about all these detailed examples, the stiff
• 21:11
  speaker, the invisible silk washer, the martial artist, and
• 21:13
  this core principle of being natural, what does that suggest
• 21:17
  to you, listening now about communicating effectively, not
• 21:20
  just from a pulpit, but in your own life, your interactions?
• 21:23
  Yeah, maybe consider this. Those sources saw things like
• 21:27
  the water wagtail posture, the Penguin pose, the superfine
• 21:30
  preening as putting up barricades between speaker and
• 21:33
  listener. How might the principle behind
• 21:36
  avoiding those things, the principle of focusing on genuine
• 21:38
  connection and purpose rather than self-conscious performance,
• 21:41
  apply today? How do we avoid putting up
• 21:43
  similar, maybe more subtle barricades in our own
• 21:46
  conversations if we really want to connect with people?
• 21:48
  Something to think about. Thanks for joining us for this
• 21:51
  deep dive. Distinct audio outro for
• 21:53
  reformed thinking.