Whatever your political bent, there are a number of things that preachers could learn from Obama’s victory speech.
Image by Captain Nandu Chitnis via Flickr
1. He did not draw attention to himself
I would think that on the cusp of a profoundly historical event, and an extraordinary achievement, it would be all too easy to turn inward. To dwell on one’s journey, and focus on one’s hopes and dreams fulfilled would be a temptation that too many of us would not be able to resist. But Obama didn’t do that. It was about the people, not him; it was their victory, not his.
Preachers are to put Jesus on centre-stage, not themselves, and are to serve the people. Our hearers are not there to give us an audience. They are not there to glory in our abilities or godliness. And yet I’ve heard not a few preachers who are more self-aggrandizing than Obama was. That gives me pause.
2. He reflected on the big picture
Obama painted a picture of where America has come from, and how this election fits within it. Lincoln. Luther-King. Slavery to civil rights to a black president. The occasion was sharpened in its significance and importance by Obama’s skillful reference to the past.
Preachers need always to paint the big picture. Not in a clumsy, here’s-how-Jesus-fits-in way, but in a way that helps their hearers appreciate the significance of their topic, why it matters, and how extraordinary God’s cosmic plan for reconciliation really is.
3. He was understated… and it worked
With such a momentous occasion, I would expect someone else to be swept away with emotion. Yet Obama was calm and steady. It would have been easy to ride that wave of undulating excitement and emotion. Instead, Obama chose to speak with reserve and poise. The effect of this, for me, was to think that this guy is in control, and is serious about the challenge ahead.
I’m not saying that preachers shouldn’t get excited. But sometimes I think preachers can make the mistake of thinking that unless they get worked up, their message won’t ‘hit home’. This just isn’t true. Obama spoke with reserve and understatement, and it was powerful.
4. He spoke about the abstract in an accessible way
The part of the speech I’m thinking of here is when he started talking about the 106 year old woman who voted that day. She was born when women were not allowed to vote, and African Americans were not allowed to vote. She lived through two world wars and through the civil rights movement. She lived to see the day when an African American would be elected president. Then Obama pondered his daughter’s life, and what she would live to see, and what the world would be like at the end of her lifetime. What Obama was doing, of course, was to speak about an abstract thing in a tangible, concrete way. He was describing the progress of a country, and the enormous changes that have occurred within the last century, as well as the hopes for a better future. But he clothed this in a lovely story about an old woman, and the prospects of a young girl.
I think preachers need to work hard at talking about great, yet abstract, truths in ways that are tangible and concrete for their hearers. Not everyone copes with abstract thought very well, and even when they do, it is often far less engaging than less abstract material. This might be read as a plug for sermon illustrations, and I guess it is in a way, but it’s more than that. Illustrations are one way of making abstract thought more accessible to hearers, but there are other ways too. And I think we should work hard at it. Obama did it beautifully and seamlessly.
5. He cast a vision
Instead of making a big deal about the significance of an African American president, Obama cast a vision beyond himself, into the future, involving the commitment of the nation. He acknowledged the seriousness of America’s problems, and he asked the people for their help. He was no superhero who would solve their problems on his own strength. But together they could do it.
Preachers need to cast a vision beyond themselves, into the future, involving the commitment of their hearers. We need to point to the challenges ahead and yet provide hope that, in Christ and with the Spirit, we may, together, honour Christ.
This whole post has been about ‘human’ techniques to do with good communication. But we should remember that preaching is much more than this. We preach, filled with the Spirit of God, wielding the sword of the Spirit, while the Spirit works in people’s hearts, pointing them to Jesus. Obama was great, and the spirit of the event was powerful, but it was not a patch on the Spirit at work as God’s word is proclaimed.
Posted by Con Campbell
Rick Creighton
Bruce Lowe
Con Campbell
RSS feed - Posts
Subscribe by Email
[...] What preachers can learn from Obama’s victory speech. Posted by: John H @ 12:49 pm | Trackback | Permalink [...]
Thanks for the post Con, some good thoughts here. Thanks also for the blog, I’m enjoying it a great deal.
Little request – can we get a ‘subscribe me to these comments’ feed in the comment form?
Thanks for that Con, even though not a preacher it offers ways to encourage those who are.
Hey guys,
Thanks for the post Con.
Thanks for the new blog guys. I didn’t realise that you guys knew each other! I look forward to what you three can come up with!
[...] watchA Tribute to Billy Graham at 90What preachers can learn from ObamaBali Bomberssome realities a pastor must grasp « shane’s blogAmerica Has Chosen a PresidentIn God [...]
Thanks all!
[...] tips posted at Read Better, Preach Better, based on the president-elect’s victory speech in Chicago (HT: BHT): “3. He was [...]
Great observations!
I’m actually looking forward to going over my next talk with this in mind
Thanks Con.
Tell me — do you think that you could have learned the same lessons from McCain’s concession speech? (Except the last one, which would have been inappropriate.)
I don’t know Justin. It was a good speech, and kudos to him for his graciousness in defeat. Probably point 4 doesn’t really apply either.
I’d have to have another listen to see if your points carry to McCain’s. Not that it matters. But I worry in a Christian world about learning from a victor!
I’ve spent some time over the years watching and listening to MLK’s ‘I have a dream’ speech to learn. I like the idea of learning from these orators. But I’m nervous about it at the same time…
My co-blogger Bruce Lowe would argue that Paul uses rhetorical techniques from the ancient world, and I’m not sure that what I’m suggesting is very different.
But I know what you mean. I think we need to be wary that we don’t imbibe a worldview that is less than Christian, and we need to recognize and avoid manipulative rhetorical techniques.
Other than that, I think we should learn from good orators, just as Christian authors would no doubt learn from Shakespeare and Whitman, and Christian musicians learn from Mozart and Coltrane (I wish more of them would, anyway!).
Good comments Con. If Paul and other NT writers used rhetorical strategies of their own day then there’s a biblical precedent for Christian preachers to do the same from their own culture… albeit with the sensible balance Con suggests. If it can be shown they did, then it is not only possible that we can do this… there is something of a mandate for it. Of course the point must be established first – and maybe I’ll give that a shot soon in a blog entry.
The question of manipulation was an issue for first century Orators of all shapes and sizes, even as it today.
Great Practical entry Con – if I’m allowed to commend my friend and co-blogger
Thanks Bruce!
Great post, Con.
I think part of our discussion here turns on what we mean by the word “rhetoric”. And on what connotations it carries. There are two basic possibilities:
(1) Negative-Rhetoric
Rhetoric = manipulation = persuasion apart from the truth
(Other words like “eloquence” can be given this spin to. McCain attempted to portray “eloquence” as a failing during the campaign.)
This was certainly a problem in Corinth, and Paul reject such rhetoric/eloquence totally
Cf. 1 Cor 2v1-4 (…”I did not come with eloquence or superior wisdom… not with wise and persuasive words …”)
Bruce Winter has a good chapter on this in After Paul Left Corinth.
(2) Positive-Rhetoric
Rhetoric = good communication = truth persuasively presented
Paul was a good communicator. We have many examples of his writing (the Epistles) and some glimpses of his preaching (in Acts). These are not without skill.
John Harvey unfolds some of Paul’s communicative skill, at a more technical level, in Listening to the Text.
The issue underneath all this is: Does the way we speak draw our listeners to the truth, or take them away from it?
Unfortunately, there are many ways to miss the mark, including:
- Speak what’s false
- Speak what’s true in such a way that no one understands
- Speak what’s true in such a way that everyone is bored rigid, and do not hear the truth
- Speak with such overtly, self-conscious skill that it draws attention to the skill (not the truth)
None of these “ways” are true to the brilliance of the gospel. We have a message that is more compelling that anything else. Our speaking should reflect that.
In gospel preaching, there is no room for negative-rhetoric.
In gospel preaching, there is all the room in the world for positive-rhetoric
That’s a great clarification Rick.
Speak with such overtly, self-conscious skill that it draws attention to the skill (not the truth)
While I understand that the “overtly, self-conscious” part means that initiative is taken by the preacher, does there also need to be some discernment on the part of the hearer? While the preacher may be doing their utmost to use “positive rhetoric” and avoid “negative rhetoric”, what would it take to foster an environment that encourages “positive hearing” as well?
Thanks again for such a helpful article and comment(s).
“He was understated… and it worked” … The Mock Temple at Denver and all that surrounded him that night didn’t look understated to me it smacked of someone with a Messiah complex.
What’s the Mock Temple at Denver, to which your refer, James? Yes, there may be some ‘messianism’ going on in the US at the moment, but my reflections were merely on the victory speech itself, in Chicago.