Page 2679 – Christianity Today (2025)

There is something deeply, damagingly conventional about Passengers, an obvious fact before the opening credits are even finished. But once this is recognized, there is no reason Passengers cannot be enjoyed in the same way that an episode of ABC’s Lost might be. That is, as a small but entertaining exercise in twisty sci-fi indulgence.

Indeed, the similarities between Passengers and Lost are immense. Both are about mysterious plane crashes, the troubled post-crash lives of a small band of survivors, and some unexplained supernatural creepiness. Both have romance, violence, dead parent apparitions, and characters named Claire. In the end, though, Passengers is much simpler than any given episode of Lost, even if less stylishly rendered.

Passengers, directed by Rodrigo Garcia (Nine Lives, Things You Can Tell Just by Looking at Her), does not take place on a tropical island, but rather a dreary looking area of British Columbia. The film begins, predictably enough, with a plane crash, with a handful of survivors walking around dazed and bloodied amidst carnage and fire.

We then jump forward to subsequent weeks, after the survivors have returned to their normal lives, as therapist Claire Summers (Anne Hathaway) attempts to reach out and help these people cope with the trauma of being the sole survivors. Of course, the therapy does not go as planned. Passengers begin to go missing, new survivors come out of the woodwork, suspicious airline officials begin following Claire around, and one passenger seems all too gleeful about the whole experience. He is Eric (Patrick Wilson), a charming, handsome broker who lives in a cool bohemian loft where he has taken up abstract painting (apparently his way of dealing with the crash).

Eric refuses to go to group therapy sessions, but Claire—nice therapist that she is—agrees to meet with him one on one at his home. He proceeds to aggressively flirt with her while insisting that he not be “her patient,” which (of course) paves the way for their inevitable sexual relationship. Lest the movie get lost in “Kate/Jack/Sawyer” soap opera gushiness, Passengers makes certain to keep up the mysteries, twists, and supernatural intrigue all the while.

Unsurprisingly, the film ends with a big twist, though it’s not one of those “gotcha!” endings that is supposed to take us off guard and blow our minds. No, it’s more like a twist that we probably see coming but which elevates the film and gives it a needed unifying logic. It’s a twist that is more about emotional and thematic closure rather than shock value. In M. Night Shyamalan terms, it’s more of a Village rather than Sixth Sense ending.

But this film’s chief asset is not its ending. Its two leads—and their surprising and tender chemistry—are the best thing about this movie, and one of the main reasons it’s watchable. Though the script by first-timer Ronnie Christensen is pretty clunky and amateurish (there is way too much talking that has no corresponding action), Hathaway and Wilson do their best with it. Hathaway—fresh off a career-defining performance in Rachel Getting Married—fits fine in the role of the confused, wide-eyed heroine, and Wilson is his typical charismatic self as the mysterious and endearing Eric. It’s easy to see why their characters forge a bond and fall in love, and the scenes that show their relationship developing are the best in the film.

Indeed, it might have been better had Passengers stuck closer to the romance and left out some of the trippy supernatural bits. At times it seems like a film without a genre home, but then again, this is also the feeling one gets when watching Lost, and on that show it works. No, the real problem with Passengers is that it all just feels a bit ho-hum. The Claire/Eric relationship is nice enough, and at times there is a suitably ethereal—almost elegant—mood lent the film by its cinematography and understated music (Ed Shearmur). Credit should be given to Garcia for turning a sub-par script into a film that is a least somewhat aesthetically interesting, though from the director of something like Nine Lives—which is one of my favorite films of the last five years—I definitely expected greater things.

It’s a wonder that such a marquee arthouse director, teamed with a stellar, largely arthouse cast, resulted in a film that is so unspectacular. But it’s certainly not a catastrophe of a film, which makes it all the more puzzling that Passengers has been all but abandoned by its studio. There was zero publicity for it (have you ever even heard of it?), no critics’ screenings, and apparently no expectation or hope for it to recoup its budget ($25 million). It’s not a horrible film, and certainly could have made some money had it gotten even a tad of publicity, so it really is a mystery why it has been “dumped,” as they say in the industry.

Perhaps the Lost similarity really was its undoing. Though the script was written before the days of Lost (I saw the script in 2004 when I worked for Focus Features), it unfortunately contains a plot that plays out in a way that many people assume Lost will. Indeed, maybe Passengers is so close to Lost‘s end game that ABC lobbied Sony to put the kibosh on it, to keep viewers from getting any spoiler ideas. Alas, this is just the sort of conspiracy theory avid fans of that show love to make up.

Whatever the reason for Passengers‘ lackluster entrance onto the national film stage, it probably need not be speculated about. The fact is, Passengers is a film neither good nor bad enough to be especially memorable. It is the type of film you might enjoy as an HBO stumble-upon on a Sunday afternoon, but if you never happen upon it, don’t worry. You won’t miss it.

>Talk About It

Discussion starters

1. What do you think of the twist at the end? What does it reveal about the characters and how they interacted up till that point?
2. Compare this film to The Sixth Sense, The Others, and/or Lost. What are these films/shows trying to reveal about humanity? About the supernatural?
3. What do you think happens after the end of the film for Claire and Eric?

The Family Corner

For parents to consider

Passengers is rated PG-13 for some language and scary scenes, most notably a violent plane crash scene. There is one scene of sexuality, but no nudity. Themes deal with the supernatural; it’s certainly not a movie for young children.

Photos © Copyright Sony Pictures Entertainment

Copyright © 2008 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

What other Christian critics are saying:

• Plugged In
• Crosswalk
• Catholic News Service
• Past the Popcorn

Christine Collins (Angelina Jolie) is a single mother—competent, responsible, and devoted to her nine-year-old son Walter—who works as a switchboard supervisor in Los Angeles. She returns home from a weekend shift in early 1928 to discover that Walter has vanished. A nationwide search is launched, but to no avail, until a child claiming to be Walter Collins surfaces in Illinois six months later. He is returned to Christine, who immediately recognizes that the boy is not her son. Broken-hearted, confused, and manipulated by a shifty police force unwilling to recognize its mistake in front of the press, she allows herself to be persuaded to take the boy home on a “trial basis.”

Becoming increasingly certain that the police have simply made a mistake, Christine protests and persists in requesting that they re-open her case and continue to search for Walter. But the Los Angeles Police Department of the time—embattled, inept, rotting from the inside out—recognizes that she represents a potential public relations nightmare for them, and goes to great lengths to paint Christine as a bad, irresponsible, and mentally disturbed woman. She fights back with the help of Reverend Gustav Briegleb (John Malkovich), who has made it his mission to expose what he calls from the pulpit “the most violent, corrupt, and incompetent police department this side of the Rockies.” But in this society, women who stand up against corrupt authority were not smiled upon, and things get much worse for Christine before they get better.

Meanwhile, a detective on a simple deportation case stumbles across a teenager who tells a sickening tale with potentially explosive implications, and as the case unfolds, the city is rocked to its core. As the cases dovetail, the justice system is forced to confront its problems, inequities, and injustices—but in ways nobody is expecting.

Based closely on a true story, there’s a lot in Changeling to remind us that the “good old days” weren’t necessarily so good. Even (and especially) by today’s standards, the crimes committed in Wineville are heinous and disturbing, but that seems almost mild compared to the treatment of innocent citizens, and especially women, by the LAPD at the time. Amy Ryan, in a short but brilliant turn as a “lady of the night” who crossed a police officer, tells Christine that “everyone knows women are fragile; if we’re insane, nobody has to listen to us.” Halfway through the film, I scribbled down that I was reminded why the feminist movement was necessary—one can hardly imagine a police department today operating with immunity under such unbridled and unchecked misogyny, or a woman who would not be willing to put up a fight. (Of course, today, such a police force would be accountable to a simple DNA test.)

This is the kind of movie that automatically garners Oscar buzz: an emotional, dramatic period piece, with a celebrated director and strong performances. Christine has little of the sexpot we’re used to from Jolie, and so her performance is especially haunting as a strong, independent woman who nevertheless is a product of her time. Malkovich, as a feisty minister who is completely in touch with the problems in his wider community, is a refreshing and inspiring kind of preacher to see on the big screen. Director Clint Eastwood was born in 1930 and grew up around southern California, making him one of the few working directors today who can actually remember the older LA depicted in the film. It’s to good effect; this Los Angeles feels spot-on, down to the cable cars.

So the real question with this sort of movie is whether it will deserve the Oscar nominations it seems likely to get. And with Changeling, I’m not convinced. Its “true story” roots may be its problem. Screenwriter J. Michael Straczynski says that he stuck closely to the facts of the case in order to honor Christine’s bravery, and that’s admirable. In fact, it’s amazing that this bit of history hasn’t been previously adapted into a film, given its cinematic potential.

Unfortunately, it also means that the story, which is riveting for most of its first two hours, loses steam by the end and finishes about half an hour later than necessary in an attempt to tell the whole tale. There is no satisfactorily corresponding payoff for the audience. A screenplay based on an original tale can conclude in a more natural place, and though real life rarely follows the best dramatic arc, “true story” movies sometimes lose track of telling a good story in their overarching need to cover it all. When a movie with this much potential squanders some of its impact with a wandering ending, it’s hard for the audience to ignore the deficiency.

But whatever its flaws, Changeling is worth seeing. Aside from the chilling implications (who will protect us from corrupt protectors?), it is not a judgmental or political film. It’s even-handed in its treatment of all its characters, and there’s a spark of humanity in all of the bad guys. The end result conveys a broken-heartedness over the deficiencies and evil perpetuated by humans, the inescapable flaws in the justice system of a fallen world, and the lengths that people will go to protect their reputation.

Talk About It

Discussion starters

1. Changeling emphasizes a society’s poor treatment of women, both those who are moral and those who sin. What has changed since then in our world? What would Jesus have to say to a woman like Carol Dexter (Amy Ryan)?
2. It’s clear that most people in this film know what is the right thing to do, but some choose not to act. What does James 4:17 say about people like Detective Jones, who know what is right, and yet choose to ignore it?
3. What do you make of Gordon Northcott’s claim of repentance?

The Family Corner

For parents to consider

Changeling is rated R for some violent and disturbing images, and language. Slight spoilers: It’s an inherently disturbing plot, with several scenes of bloody violence toward children, a hanging, and badly mistreated women in an asylum (both sane and not). The bad language, which includes a few f-bombs, is used in expected situations, and is not gratuitous.

Photos © Copyright Universal Pictures

Copyright © 2008 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

What other Christian critics are saying:

• Plugged In
• Crosswalk
• Catholic News Service
• Past the Popcorn

Since the fall of the Iron Curtain, several families I know have adopted children from Eastern Europe. As they grow, some of these children exhibit a set of extremely troubling symptoms: hostility, inability to form close relationships, and distrust of people, particularly authority figures. These children can become self-destructive, highly sensitive to rejection and anger, and blame everyone close to them for the problems in their lives.

Paradoxically, they often idealize their relationships initially and become preoccupied with them, so that they desire large amounts of contact and affection. However, break-ups are rapid, climactic, and destructive, and soon after one relationship ends, they begin to obsess about filling the vacuum with another. Psychologists call this syndrome Attachment Disorder (or AD).

In my consulting work, I interact with certain churches that exhibit the same sets of issues with love and authority as AD children. I call them Attachment Disorder churches.

Like AD children, AD churches are made, not born. They have been abandoned somehow, either physically, emotionally, or both. Attachment Disorder, in both children and churches, makes love and authority relationships incredibly challenging. Fortunately, God offers ways of healing the unique pain they carry.

A church’s detachment

One AD church I worked with recently had an awesome history. They had sent close to seventy missionaries overseas and placed several leaders into key positions in their denomination. For many decades they experienced spiritual health and blessing.

Then about 25 years ago, they called a pastor whose wife had just undergone a radical mastectomy. Her cancer went into remission, and for three years this pastor labored faithfully with this flock. Then the cancer returned. As his wife grew sicker, the congregation supported both her and him, visiting, bringing meals, and giving him time off as needed. The pastor came to believe that God was going to heal his wife completely. He preached confidently that he was neither anxious nor worried about what was happening because God had told him she would be healed.

He maintained his “stance of faith,” and the church continued to provide care and support of all kinds, as she wasted away. Then suddenly, she died. The pastor and his church were devastated. He could not preach the Sunday after her funeral, which was understandable. But that very afternoon, he handed his resignation to the chairman of the church board.

“I cannot do this anymore!” he said. He would not be dissuaded from resigning. This broken-hearted, grieving man left the church and the ministry, bitterly disappointed with God and unable to serve him thereafter.

Churches with AD say they want a shepherd to lead them but remain completely resistant.

The church body had been deeply vested in this couple. Then, in the moment of crisis, and despite their attempts to reach out to him, this shepherd abandoned his flock, just at the time they needed each other the most. And the church bore scars for years.

Like the pastor in this account, the parents of AD children are often in such deep emotional pain that they have nothing left to give their infants. In other words, the point is not to blame the shepherd. Nevertheless, it is important to understand that for a flock to be abandoned by its shepherd at such a moment has significant repercussions. Jesus gives us a hint of them when he says: “I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep. The hired hand is not the shepherd who owns the sheep. So when he sees the wolf coming, he abandons the sheep and runs away. Then the wolf attacks the flock and scatters it. The man runs away because he is a hired hand and cares nothing for the sheep” (John 10:11-13).

While his actions were understandable, this devastated pastor left his grieving flock scattered. Once the dust cleared and a sense of normalcy returned, this church began to exhibit some unhealthy traits.

It did not help that the next pastor repeated the pattern. He led them through a building program and a move to a new location and, within a month of the move, packed up and left. Another case of abandonment.

With two such desertions at critical times, this formerly great church began to see and treat its pastors as “hired hands.” It even got the reputation within the denomination as a “pastor killer,” refusing to love and support any of its pastors! It no longer trusted leaders and, as a result, resisted their attempts to lead. With every pastor who departed, the syndrome was reinforced: “See! We were right. These men cannot be trusted!”

Diagnosing the disorder

It used to be that churches trusted pastors unless something such as moral failure or spiritual abuse broke that trust. Today, though, when the average length of a pastor’s ministry in some churches is less than three years, the factor that prompts to churches to become “hard to lead” is a situation of abandonment at a crucial juncture.

What is a “crucial juncture”? A wolf on the horizon (some significant event with potential negative consequences for the church) that causes the pastor to flee. It can be a conflict or a challenge to his leadership. It could be corporate anxiety caused by a drop in giving, decreased attendance, a move, or a building program.

If you are in a church that is difficult to lead, but you have never heard about a moral failure or spiritual abuse from a previous pastoral administration, you might be involved with an AD church.

Attachment Disorder churches share several common symptoms.

1. A time of splintering or scattering.In one church I was consulting with, the founding pastor had established a “papal model” of pastoral leadership. The church had grown and thrived under his benevolent dictatorship for many years, but the lay leadership remained untrained, untested, and, therefore, weak.

A crisis moment came when the pastor was challenged by an associate staff member, and he looked to his lay leaders for strong support. They just looked back at him passively as they had always done, and at that moment he felt deserted and unsupported.

Broken-hearted, he left the church and the church reeled. Another associate used Jesus’ words from John 10 to describe the effect. “The congregation splintered and scattered when he left. It was horrible.”

2. Resistance to your voice as pastor.Jesus describes a healthy shepherding relationship when he says, “My sheep hear my voice.” And they don’t just hear the sound; they respond to it. A key indicator of AD, then, is a lack of responsiveness to vocal direction.

One pastor described his experience in an AD church as “preaching to a wall.” This resistance can manifest itself in both active and passive ways. Actively, people can become very critical of the pastor’s preaching. Because they think of him or her as a hireling, they feel they have the right to tell the pastor both what and how to preach.

Passively, people will attend but simply sit in the pews, arms folded, unfazed by the word of God preached. No matter how passionate the preacher may become, he cannot motivate them to action.

3. A lack of closeness—or desire to know—the pastor.Jesus says of the good shepherd’s relationship to the sheep, simply, “I know them.” That knowledge becomes mutual as the sheep hear and respond to him. In most churches, there is always a small group that will connect with a pastor, even one that is there briefly. But in an AD church that is unwilling to get to know the pastor, misunderstandings abound.

The pastor finds that his motives, actions, and words become strangely misconstrued. Thus he often feels profound loneliness in his role.

A pastor of an AD church once told me that he hated Mondays because of the letters under his door and emails in his box, almost all of them critiquing aspects of his message.

“What I find amazing is how often they totally miss my point!” he explained. “They hear the exact opposite of what I intended. If they knew me at all, they’d know that I couldn’t possibly be saying what they think I am saying.”

4. Unwillingness to follow pastoral leadership.Jesus said, “My sheep hear my voice … and they follow me.” Churches tend to follow their shepherd when they trust him or her, but the opposite is likewise true. If they don’t trust the pastor, they won’t follow. The pastor may not see this until he attempts a leadership initiative that requires the congregation’s trust—something like changing the style of a service or moving to a new location.

5. A spirit of confusion, helplessness, and negativity.Jesus felt compassion for the people of his day because they were “distressed and downcast, like sheep without a shepherd” (Matt. 9:36). This illustrates the paradoxical nature of the AD church: they have a shepherd and are often excited when he first arrives.

But because they can’t fully embrace him, they don’t feel like they have a shepherd at all. So they become distressed, confused, and downcast.

Hope for the AD church

Children may have wonderful adopted parents and still struggle with AD. Speaking of the Romanian child he and his wife adopted, a colleague told me, “We had so much love in our hearts that we naively thought, ‘Even if this little girl has been abused, broken, or neglected, our love will heal her!’ We were so wrong. We had no idea the level of resistance such children have to love and care.”

Likewise, AD churches desperately need shepherding and yet remain completely resistant. If you pastor such a church and are frustrated out of your gourd, step back and take a breath. Let the Spirit of the Good Shepherd fill you, and know he has not left you without the resources needed to love and minister to such congregations. Here are a few steps toward loving and healing such a congregation.

1. Find the hinge event(s).It is critical that you learn the history of your church. Chances are good that the situation you are facing has repeated itself in the history of your church, back to a turning point. Find this event and learn all you can about it. Talk to the key players who were there at the time and find out how the abandonment took place. This will equip you for the second step necessary to heal your church.

2. Practice identificational repentance.Identificational repentance is a concept John Dawson explains in his wonderful book, Healing America’s Wounds (Regal, 1994). Dawson says that it’s important to name the hurt that led to the current situation and to repent of it, even if you didn’t commit that offense personally. Because of your role as a leader, you can “identify” with the perpetrator of the abandonment by recognizing that you have done similar things in your own history. Your “confession” can be heart-felt, because you have abandoned people who needed you in the past, or let them down in some way. You may not have done so in this congregation, but “bailing out to save yourself” is in your heart.

Therefore you stand in the place of the one who abandoned the congregation in the past and, as a “similar sinner,” ask their forgiveness. A pastor who understands that congregations sometimes take issue with the role and not with the pastor personally can represent everyone who has held that role previously. People then can let go of the pain and forgive from the heart.

The effects of identificational repentance are powerful. Like Nehemiah who prayed, “I and my fathers have sinned,” pastors who exercise identificational repentance recognize that they are part of the problem, even if they didn’t personally commit the deed. This stance is key to becoming part of the solution. Rather than distancing yourself from the sin and pain, you can take it on yourself, as Jesus did, bearing it publicly before the congregation that they might be healed.

3. Stay!Commit to long-term ministry. Obviously this is the hardest part to sell to wounded and scarred pastors, yet it makes perfect sense. If the problem has been a reaction to abandonment, then part of the healing is to persevere long-term. How long is long enough? Long enough to lead the church through the healing process outlined above. In the end, you may find the atmosphere around you changing in a way that makes it much easier for you to stay. If nothing else, you will have made an honest effort at reconciliation before reassessing your decision to leave.

Churches are very aware of the signs of long-term commitment. I pastored a church that had two short-term pastors (both stayed less than two years) after the founding pastor had been there seventeen years. I did not realize how they felt about pastoral abandonment until I planted asparagus. The congregation, a farming and suburban community in Michigan, knew very well that asparagus takes three years to bear a crop. When they learned I had planted asparagus, they began to trust I was not going to be like the two previous pastors!

Attachment disorder churches can be a challenge, but God gives sensitive pastors the tools to turn things around.

Kenneth Quick is associate professor of practical theology at Capital Bible Seminary in Lanham, Maryland, and a consultant with BlessingPoint Ministries (blessingpoint.org).

Copyright © 2008 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal.Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

In an earlier post, I outlined the content of Scot McKnight’s new book, The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking how you read the Bible. Here are a few reflections on what I consider the book’s primary strengths and weaknesses.

First the strengths.

There is much about The Blue Parakeet that is praiseworthy. McKnight’s conversation about reading the Bible as story is immensely helpful. I was in college before I learned (in a Bible interpretation class) that the Good Book is really one giant narrative that runs from Genesis to Revelation. That insight changed the way I understood and approached the Scriptures. What McKnight adds to that observation is the idea that each of the 66 books of the canon is a wiki-story – a unique retelling of the metanarrative.

The major benefit of thinking about the Bible in this way is that it forces us to recognize that the later writers (like Paul) are translating and applying the older writers (like Moses). Growing up, I thought of the relationship between the books of the Bible in this way: picture all the authors of the Bible standing on the platform at your church. When Moses finishes his part of the story, he hands the microphone to the writer of Joshua, who talks for a while, passes the mic down the aisle, and so on until Paul takes over the story. If each author is simply giving one part of the whole story, then it gets really confusing when the author’s seem to contradict each other. But if we think of each author as retelling the single, major story from his unique context and perspective, then we get a real sense of the way God’s relationship with his people has developed over time. So Paul doesn’t contradict Moses’ teaching on the Law; he interprets it in the first century.

On a practical level, that gives us great biblical examples of how God’s people have had to reconsider how to live the Bible message in each generation. If you’ve had some exegesis classes and have gotten the sneaking suspicion that Paul would have failed Interp 101, you’ll probably appreciate McKnight’s insights on this point.

The second great aspect of The Blue Parakeet is its consistent emphasis on behavior. McKnight is clearly concerned about how we apply Scripture, and that is evident from the first page to the last. It’s refreshing to read a book about the Bible that isn’t as concerned with explicating every detail as it is with making sure that Christians are equipped to live Christianly. The overall effect this commitment has on the reader is to demystify the interpretation process so that it doesn’t feel like the job of professionals and specialists. McKnight offers a vision of exegesis that makes the Bible accessible to everyone.

I benefited from McKnight’s discussion on reading the Bible as story and his insistence that the reason we read the Bible is so that we can live rightly. He also convinced me of the final (and overarching) point of his book – interpreting a story can be messy business. Because the Bible is not full of rules to retrieve, knowing how to apply it requires discernment. Indeed, none of us is consistent in how we choose what to apply and what to ignore.

In this final section on discernment, the book almost communicates this: we all pick and choose what parts and in what ways we apply the Bible, so let’s just be honest about it. And this is both a strength and a weakness. On the one hand, the author describes several ways Christians have historically discerned appropriate positions on difficult topics – what he calls “patterns of discernment.” And these are helpful. But when all is said and done, I am still unclear about how to apply McKnight’s ideas to other controversial issues.

For example, he models his methodology in the extended treatment of women in ministry at the end of the book. But there he also introduces new variables – Greek exegesis and surveys of Roman texts from the first century – that he doesn’t address anywhere else in his book. Clearly these resources make up an important part of the discernment process. But to know how to incorporate them into McKnight’s overall vision for interpretation on another issue – say, homosexuality in the twenty-first century – I would need to hear him talk more explicitly about them. At the point where his other excellent insights converge, I left needing more to understand exactly how they fit together.

That brings up the issue of audience. Who is this book for? As you might imagine, it is not for people looking for a clear methodology. That’s not necessarily a shortcoming of the book. But it’s something to consider before you read it. It is also probably not best for a brand-new Christian, someone for whom understanding the Bible may already be a problem. In my opinion, there’s not enough here for a new Bible reader to hang her hat on (it might be great, though, if it were paired with another more “how-to” guide on the subject). On other hand, this book would be great for Christians who think they have it all figured out – people who need to have the process problematized. It’s an excellent corrective for those who try to lift a passage out of its context and apply it without discernment in the present. It’s great for people who are inconsistent in their interpretation but don’t recognize it.

We all get lazy in our Bible reading. Scot McKnight holds our feet to the fire and points out our shortcuts, shortcomings, and inconsistencies. That is a much-needed service that makes The Blue Parakeet an excellent contribution to an important conversation.

I'm not real sure which was more nerve wracking, giving my first sermon in preaching class in seminary, or reading the critiques turned in by my classmates. Some of my classmates intuitively understood that they needed to balance positive encouragement with a small dose of constructive criticism. But the majority did not. Like an overzealous police officer with a whistle in his mouth, they eagerly listened and looked for the slightest slip-up.

After those seminary experiences, some of us longed for the day when no one would tell us how to preach. But in twenty-five years of ministry, I've found that inviting critique has made me a better communicator.

A friend once told me, "I've created a committee in my church that gives me feedback on my preaching." Then he added, "Evidently there are a lot of people who aren't aware that they're not on the committee."

When seeking feedback on sermons, preachers must be discriminating about who to ask. Very few people understand how personal the craft of preaching is, so preachers should not open themselves to criticism from just anyone. Here are five qualities I look for:

• Someone trustworthy and honest
• Someone whose opinion I value
• Someone who understands public speaking
• Someone who can affirm as well and challenge
• Someone who can accept disagreement

In a smaller church, such people may be a retired minister, a person in sales or marketing, or a school teacher. In larger churches, a preacher may find other staff members to be a helpful source of critique. I suggest assembling a sermon assessment group with prayer (as well as fear and trembling). And inform the group that this is just a trial period. That way if the group proves to be unhelpful or too combative, there is already an exit strategy.

I have four people read my manuscript to offer critique and counsel before I preach it. After my first service on Saturday night, I invite three people to leave me a voice mail with their observations. Their messages are anywhere from one to five minutes—depending on the quality of my sermon and the personality of the one leaving the message. Most voice mails are about 80 percent affirmation and 20 advice. I appreciate that ratio. If it were reversed, I'd never listen to my voice mail.

I'll often use their advice to adjust my sermon before Sunday's services. After a "critic" hears you use their suggestion, he or she immediately feels valued. I also look for opportunities to tell others how my team has helped my preaching. If someone comments about an illustration, I might say, "You can thank Rusty for that one, because Saturday night he left that quote on my voice mail and it led perfectly into my conclusion!"

These simple affirmations accomplish three things. First, they motivate your team to be on the lookout for helpful tips and stories. Second, they encourage the people who have helped you. And third, they communicate that you are still seeking to improve as a preacher and that you haven't "arrived."

One of my favorite Michael Jordan stories came from the game when he scored 69 points. The Chicago Bulls' lead was so big that in the final minute Coach Phil Jackson put in Stacey King—a seldom used rookie substitute. King scored two meaningless free throws. Some years later he was asked by a reporter, "What's been the highlight of your career?" King glibly replied, "It would have to be the night Michael Jordan and I combined to score 71 points!"

Whether your critics' contribution to your sermon is worth two points or many more, having their input will only help the outcome. Surrounding yourself with people who can speak truth and wisdom into your preaching will enhance your ministry and allow you to more effectively communicate God's message.

Dave Stone is the senior minister of Southeast Christian Church in Louisville, Kentucky.

Copyright © 2008 by the author or Christianity Today/Leadership Journal.Click here for reprint information on Leadership Journal.

Sarah Palin will give her first major policy speech tomorrow, calling for full funding of special education.

She spoke to the Chicago Tribune about families that have children with special needs, including her sister.

Jill Zuckman writes that the The McCain campaign plans to add an extra $3 billion a year over five years to special education. She writes:

Palin’s eyes well up as she talks about her sister’s son, Karcher, who has autism.

“My sister and I have talked a lot about this. It makes me cry thinking about it,” Palin said. “She asked with tears in her eyes, she says, ‘What happens when Kurt and I, though, are elderly, then what happens to Karcher?’ “

Who knew that the reported $150,000 purchase of clothing for Sarah Palin would become such a bigdeal?

“She needed clothes at the time,” John McCain said today. “It works that the clothes will be donated to charity. Nothing surprises me.” He also said that he pays for all of his own clothing.

Palin told the Chicago Tribune that the clothes are not worth $150,000 and were bought for the Republican National Convention.

“That whole thing is just, bad!” she said. “Oh, if people only knew how frugal we are. It’s kind of painful to be criticized for something when all the facts are not out there and are not reported.” Palin said the clothes will be given back, auctioned off or sent to charity.

Barna just released a poll that shows only 45 percent of “born again” voters plan for vote for John McCain while 43 percent plan to cast a vote for Barack Obama. Sixty-three percent of evangelicals plan to vote for McCain while 23 percent plan to vote for Obama.

Earlier this week, a Pew Center survey found that 67 percent of evangelicals for McCain while 24 plan to vote for Obama. Why the difference? The centers poll differently (the Pew Center looks at white evangelicals while the Barna poll includes African Americans), but the numbers are interesting.

Mark Silk points to recent regional Quinnipiac polls for McCain’s lead among evangelicals: Florida (71-23), Ohio (59-32), and Pennsylvania (63-32).

Says David G. Meyers, professor of psychology at Hope College:

Ridiculous, and worse. So say the new atheist books: In God is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens does not mince words, calling religion “violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism and tribalism and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children.” Now Bill Maher’s movie Religulous lampoons the plausibility and social effects of all religion, ominously concluding that the world will end if religion does not end. But I suggest that social science data point to a different conclusion.

For the whole post, click here.

Hat tip: David G. Meyers, Sightings, and the Martin Marty Center at the University of Chicago Divinity School.

My roommate and I are carving pumpkins tonight, so it’s convenient that I stumbled upon the Associated Press’ political pumpkin kit. There’s also yeswecarve.com for Barack Obama and a page here set aside for John McCain.

Update: Yes, there was a nonpartisan pumpkin carving. Here are the photos: