first impressions of Rev. David Grimm
Apr. 15th, 2007 01:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
edenfallingMy first impressions of Rev. Grimm, gleaned from this morning's service:
First of all, he seems like a nice guy. That's very important.
He seems to have an occasional problem where he leaves out a word or uses the wrong syllable by mistake (example: turning 'elephant' into 'element,' or 'proposes' into 'purposes' -- things like that). I can live with that.
He doesn't have that particularly irritating pause-punctuated, glacial delivery that bedevils a number of UU ministers I've listened to over the years; however, he sometimes gets caught up in his sentences and gets a little fast and wrought up and then has to descend abruptly back to calm when he hits the end of a point, and his points don't always justify the build-up.
He's definitely interested in religious pluralism, and all the various points of view people can and do bring to UUism.
He dragged the moment of silence out about three times longer than I think the congregation was comfortable with.
He was a little condescending while doing the children's story section of the service, and didn't adjust properly to their answers when he asked questions. He also didn't make the point of the story clear enough. Still, you can't ask everyone to be good with kids, and he did a lot better than I've seen other people do. He wasn't stiff about it, for one thing.
His sermon delivery style was a bit on the 'lecture' side, and I found myself wanting to argue with him over some points of historical interpretation. I later realized that he was correct about his dates according to the specific definition of terms he was using -- when the Unitarian church organized itself in America, rather than when the Unitarian tradition arose/arrived in America -- but he should have been more clear about that.
He tried too hard to make a point in his sermon, I think, and got muddled between making a point about how openness applied to the individual (spiritual journeys and whatnot) and how openness applies to society (respect, freedom, etc.), and he got a little fuzzy-wuzzy at the very end, but that's okay.
He seems to follow the 'I will throw some disparate elements at you and weave them into a point' style rather than the 'here is my point and now I will illustrate it' or 'this is an experience I had, which I will reflect upon and use to illustrate universal truths' styles. He's much less disjointed than one of the other ministers I've known (Rev. Dr. George Kimmich 'Kim' Beach) who used that sermon style.
I think, if the congregational meeting on whether or not to call Rev. Grimm were today, I'd vote yes (with a few reservations). Fortunately, I have a dinner and a second sermon to add impressions and refine my opinions of him, and I hope I can get some of my reservations and questions addressed. :-)
First of all, he seems like a nice guy. That's very important.
He seems to have an occasional problem where he leaves out a word or uses the wrong syllable by mistake (example: turning 'elephant' into 'element,' or 'proposes' into 'purposes' -- things like that). I can live with that.
He doesn't have that particularly irritating pause-punctuated, glacial delivery that bedevils a number of UU ministers I've listened to over the years; however, he sometimes gets caught up in his sentences and gets a little fast and wrought up and then has to descend abruptly back to calm when he hits the end of a point, and his points don't always justify the build-up.
He's definitely interested in religious pluralism, and all the various points of view people can and do bring to UUism.
He dragged the moment of silence out about three times longer than I think the congregation was comfortable with.
He was a little condescending while doing the children's story section of the service, and didn't adjust properly to their answers when he asked questions. He also didn't make the point of the story clear enough. Still, you can't ask everyone to be good with kids, and he did a lot better than I've seen other people do. He wasn't stiff about it, for one thing.
His sermon delivery style was a bit on the 'lecture' side, and I found myself wanting to argue with him over some points of historical interpretation. I later realized that he was correct about his dates according to the specific definition of terms he was using -- when the Unitarian church organized itself in America, rather than when the Unitarian tradition arose/arrived in America -- but he should have been more clear about that.
He tried too hard to make a point in his sermon, I think, and got muddled between making a point about how openness applied to the individual (spiritual journeys and whatnot) and how openness applies to society (respect, freedom, etc.), and he got a little fuzzy-wuzzy at the very end, but that's okay.
He seems to follow the 'I will throw some disparate elements at you and weave them into a point' style rather than the 'here is my point and now I will illustrate it' or 'this is an experience I had, which I will reflect upon and use to illustrate universal truths' styles. He's much less disjointed than one of the other ministers I've known (Rev. Dr. George Kimmich 'Kim' Beach) who used that sermon style.
I think, if the congregational meeting on whether or not to call Rev. Grimm were today, I'd vote yes (with a few reservations). Fortunately, I have a dinner and a second sermon to add impressions and refine my opinions of him, and I hope I can get some of my reservations and questions addressed. :-)
