This helped me understand myself better:

So, for postmoderns, clarity may be a lower value than intrigue. And this Aristotelian re-balancing means that writers ethos—their moral character that is conveyed through their rhetorical choices—is essential to earn credibility in goodness. For example, a clear, convincing, cogent, articulate, powerful argument that is perceived to be overbearing and coercive may be less persuasive than a kinder, gentler argument that leaves room for the reader to reach his or her own conclusions."

A lot of what I hear around Christian circles seems to leave no room for other conclusions. In fact, a lot of what we say seems to be a verbal stop sign more than a green light towards further dialogue.

We fire off words like verbal machine gunners bent on ending something instead of starting something.

Our "talks" are not conversations they are verbal hand grenades lobed over high walled pulpits.

Soon as our mouths open, a paralyzing green haze emerges that turns insecure souls to stone.

I think the way we preach at each other, really shows how afraid we are conversation, dialogue and debate.

The fact that we have crafted out times around a "preach" says a lot about our insecurity and desire for control, safety and lack of faith. We want predictable, definable, controllable outcomes...a sermon accomplishes that.

A conversation doesn't.