partsofspeaking

Public speaking involves muscle memory. I use this phrase to emphasize that public speaking is a very physical activity. It should make you tired, because all of your self is involved—brain, mouth, body. Just as in learning a sport, you have to physically practice to learn what your body should and should not do in front of an audience, because (and I hate to say this because it will enhance some of your anxiety), everything tends to be pronounced in public speaking—it’s bigger, projected. Two examples. Females often wear their hair in a way that it falls into their faces. That might not be a problem for you personally, but it’s a problem for an audience. We either can’t see your face, or you will be constantly pushing it out of your face, which gets annoying after the tenth time in a minute. Answer: hairspray? Barrette? New ‘do? Second example: Eye contact. All of us tend to have a bias, looking either to the left or the right hand side of the room. But you don’t want to leave out hal...

Since the title of the blog is Parts of Speaking, and since I originally started it with the mission of discussing communication topics, I am going to post through the next month on the subject of public speaking, using my curriculum in the class I teach.  Each day will be a short observation. Today, the starting place: Communication always involves a content and relationship dimension.  This is a highly important concept and one that budding public speakers often forget.  The process of communication (and it is a process, not an event) involves content (ideas, information, facts), but that is not all.  Public speakers often think that’s all that is going on, but that’s only a part.  There is also always a relationship dimension; in other words, there are statements or implications being made about power, liking, connection, trust, and status.  In rhetorical studies, we call that angle “ethos” or “credibility,” which we will talk about more later. ...

The Academy Awards don't usually interest me, for a number of reasons.  If a movie is good, it's good.  I don't need someone else's validation.  But this year I am in the unique position of having seen six of the ten nominees for best picture.  Today I saw The Social Network at what we affectionately call the $2.00 movie (it's three now).  I guess it's the second run-almost to DVD theater, where there are often lines across the screen.  That's where I usually go because I'm cheap and don't want to pay $10.00.  The Social Network was much better than I expected, and should probably get best screenplay because of the superb way the script is put together and the fantastic dialogue (very Sorkinesque).  The first scene is about as spot on as it could be.  But the movie was a downer, if for no other reason (and there were lots of reasons it was a downer) than that the future leaders of our country who go to Harvard are portrayed as a bunch of ...

Last night I watched the first half of one of the best movies, by many accounts, Being There .  For film students, it's a must-see.  I had watched it before not knowing how great it was supposed to be but concluding that it was at the end.  (I get up very early to go to work and just couldn't stay up for the whole movie last night, sadly).  I see it more a parody of media than anything else, but that's a topic for debate.  Anyway, the most discussed scene is the last one, where the main character walks on water. The movie is too complex for me to go into an adequate description now.  That would take me more time than I have and more effort than I want to expend.  From what I read, there are a few basic theories about what the last scene means.  One of them, of course, is that the film is a satire about Christ.  The foibles and successes of the main character (whom the film-goer knows the truth about but of course no one--save ...

Continuing my discussion of this topic, I am asserting more that Jesus was a model teacher, not the model teacher, since being the model teacher was not the primary goal of His visit to earth.  That doesn't negate that we can learn from His teaching methods. All his teaching was in a relational context.  He used both parables and true stories, even the local news. He used object lessons, often, perhaps overwhelmingly, using money. He is confrontational.  If someone is wrong, He says so.  This goes against current teaching, where every answer has merit whether it does or not; today, every answer has merit simply because someone said it! He commands, without apology.  This one is not for us.  We don't get that option. He takes people's core beliefs and is not afraid to show the shallowness of those beliefs. However, he also takes people's core beliefs and takes them deeper; he digs to find the why of them. He uses dialogue but not in a Platoni...

The following are some more musings about the teaching style of Jesus as recorded in the canon. 1.  He used a mixture of teaching methods, not all the same and not all the same contexts.  In the class I am taking the instructor, who is the Christian Education Director on the pastoral staff, talks about formal and informal teaching.  I like that.  Definitely what Jesus did, and we are doing it, too, even if we don't notice that.  Realizing you are teaching informally is not an excuse to be full of yourself about it, but to be humbled. 2.  Jesus accepts the people who wanted to be accepted, and He didn't so much reject the others as  let them make the decision.  No force.  But still, Jesus loved them and had compassion on them even when they rejected Him.  The rich young ruler is an example.   I can learn so much from this.  The people who "self-reject" may do so because of their own sin and bad attitude, but I can still love...

This question came up to me at a teacher training session at the church I attend.  (Note:  our church staff provides a "school of discipleship" for those who want to go deeper in a more academic way.  I really appreciate it and have taken four classes so far.  Good model.)  I got to thinking about this, and here are some musings: Jesus was perfect and He was a teacher.  However, that doesn't mean He sets Himself up as the Perfect Teacher.  Am I being irreverent?  Jesus was here to accomplish several tasks, but being a model as a teacher (in every way) may not have been one of them.  I think the question may be raised by people who want to think of Jesus as a great teacher rather than as second person of trinity and savior; that is not an option we have, as CS Lewis has so bluntly proclaimed. Was Jesus even an effective teacher?  And if He was, was it in the way He taught (His methodologies) or for some other reason?  Does Scr...