That's on a good day. On a bad day, we're just looking to get close to "it." We can't necessarily say what "it" is, but "it" has become enough of a factor that guys like Simon Cowell now place "it" and "factor" together in a lot of their sentences.
"It" isn't just fame (that helps) or money (that too) or looks (etc.). "It"'s the phenomenon of charisma by popular vote; if enough people are paying attention, you must have "it" and now I want to pay attention too.
Author Philip Rieff recently wrote a book on the topic of charisma, the origins of the word, and the way in which we sacrifice true charisma for something much less meaningful.
"Charisma cannot exist without creed," writes Rieff. His thesis plays out this way; charisma (from the Greek word "charis" meaning "grace") initially meant an authority that was rooted in morality. Charisma was a word applied to those who rework, reshape, and motivate. When the Bible says that Jesus spoke "as one with authority," it was talking about true charisma.
Rieff's concern is that we have become more attracted to the trappings of charisma than in the actual substance of it. We celebrate those who demand attention more than those who deserve it. We raise up those who speak well more than those who have something to say.
To put it another way, we think growing a beard and wearing sandals can make us more like Jesus.
On a major day in primary elections, it seems a good time to address this topic. Throughout the primaries charisma, particularly that of Barack Obama, has been a key part of the conversation.
Hillary Clinton has responded by saying that this is an election about actions, not words; the implication being that Obama is all talk and that Clinton is all action. I don't think she's right (at all), but I appreciate someone reminding us that what we often call "personal charisma" focuses more on an empty suit than on the man wearing it.
So, here's the topic for the day: How important is how you say something, in a culture controlled by soundbites? What's the balance of words and actions? How do we get back to a culture that values true charisma?
Discuss.
5 comments:
I think it's really important how we say something. I'm learning this as I get older, that how I say what I say often means more than what I say. I hope that I'm learning to lean more on grace than on authority and in doing so I become a little more like Him when I say what I say. make sense?
Clinton draws a false dichotomy, and I'm sure she knows it. It is about more than words--yes--but that does not mean words are not important. words can evoke new reality--especially when they are poetic. Good poetry has an ecstatic nature that is often difficult to explain in words; it has substance, but the substance is slippery. That ecstatic slipperiness awakens something in us that experientially draws us into itself, awakening us to new possibilities, urging us forward. That's important. Balance is needed. So is sleep. Night bro.
carl, i think you're right, but rieff's point is that to speak with grace IS to speak with authority. that we must be like those first disciples at pentecost who await the Spirit of grace to arrive before they speak instead of simply mimicking the hand motions and speech patterns of Jesus.
adam, i think you're right as well. i don't think words are unimportant (as i say, i disagree with clinton's take on obama), but i do think we make more of shadow than of substance. we're looking for someone who can "wow" us more than someone who can move us. but we need those who can move us with their words, and they tend to be those who back them up with action.
It's interesting... I don't know anything about Rieff, but I do know that the early church seemed to be shaped much by a charismatic strain. At least that's the sort of picture we get from the Didache. The Didache emphasizes the authority of the itinerary prophets to the point that you cannot even question what a prophet says. It stresses this charismatic ministry much more than the bishops, leaving you with the impression, "Oh yeah, bishops are important too...." Yet there were certain 'rules' a prophet must follow, and they had much to do with their moral character. But even with these rules in place, the charismatic strain proved to be difficult to manage, i think. Quickly the church quickly moved to a much more structured situation with the episcopacy. Interesting stuff...
When prophecy dies, bureaucracy and tradition take its place.
Post a Comment