That's one extreme. The other is that what you produce is just propaganda. Taking into account the fact that I write for different reasons, the balance between the two extremes is represented by why I write fiction: I take joy in creation. I love creating worlds, even if it is only for my own pleasure. I love it when other people enjoy the worlds I create, too. However, I love these 'worlds' too much to just say, "Any ol' world will do, so long as I am 'expressing myself.'" So that drives me to try to perfect it, like a good artist will strive to improve their talents.

I just read an article by Peter Hitchens saying that poetry is more effective for converting atheists than prose. Sometimes I think that is right, because in art for the sake of art I think people participate in the transcendental joy in creation, and thus find themselves more directly touched by God. Sometimes.

I think we're on the same wave length. There is a limit to the human powers of persuasion, especially when talking about salvation.

You and I both know salvation is a gift from God, something human powers can't affect because of our deadness from sin, spiritual blindness, resistance to God, hard hearts….

I think I understand where you are coming from. In this sense, word are insufficient. As well as in ultimately defining and explaining who God is. I think the word is ineffable.

We do have a responsibility as writers to make ourselves clear and compelling–for the edification of the church. Like you alluded to early, Paul said he'd rather say five words in an intelligible language than 10,000 in an unknown.

Good stuff, Chris. I enjoyed talking to you. Hope I didn't take up too much of your time!

My recent post David Platt Frightens Me

But on the other hand, I find a danger lurking when my desire is to become increasingly persuasive, so long as that desire is not firmly rooted in an understanding that the word of God is infinitely more persuasive that I can ever be. In fact, the word cuts to the heart where I can only prick the skin. Paul wrote to the Corinthians about this, saying, "I did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom. For I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness and in fear and much trembling, and my speech and my message were not in plausible words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith might not rest in the wisdom of men but in the power of God" (1 Cor 2:1-5). In this spirit of this thought, I remembered the story of Charles Spurgeon's testimony, who was saved after hearing the gospel by a simple layman in a church he attended as a teen.

So I think where I end up is that writing to glorify God means writing out of the power God supplies in the gift, and a greater stewarding of that gift means continuing to rest in the growth that power provides. This was such an interesting discussion that I might just write a post on it, so thanks =).

Your thoughts?

You either do it or you don't. You could be a really bad writer and still glorify Christ. So it pays to get better, because the more persuasive you are, the more Christ is glorified.

Does that make sens? Or did I just cloud the issue? Let me know what you think. I've subscribed to comments to follow this thread.

I don't know–I probably caused the confusion.

What I mean to say is that Abraham was right–there are other reasons to write than be understood. Here, I've stated one of these "other" reasons–my reason–is for Jesus to be treasured above all things. And that is my purpose for writing–to remind myself and others that nothing will satisfy us more than Him, because when we think this way, we begin to live this way, and when we live this way, obedience, and the resulting fruit, become natural expressions of our faith.

Or to say it another way: if we write solely to be understood, we take our reader only to a place of common agreement, which is good. As a negative example, we could write an expression of our hatred for God, and if our purpose is simply to be understood by others, we have done our readers no great service. But if write in order to glorify Christ, and we do so in a way that is understood by others, then we have served our readers well.

Ultimately, I think you're right: writers should write because, and perhaps only when, they have something to say. And to further the point a little more, writers should write because readers need to hear it. I just mean to explore the nature of what we have to say and encourage writers to write, not simply to be understood, but that by that understanding, something else, something greater, might occur.

Thoughts?

What other reason would you have a public facing blog than to be understood? If you wondered if you'd still write if nobody read your stuff, keep the obfuscation gig up and and you'll eventually see what it's like.

Writing is communication. Whether poetry, novel or newspaper article. So being understood is native to the medium. It's baffling to suggest otherwise.

Ultimately any writer writes because he has something to say. And if he sticks to it he gets better and his audience slowly develops around him. You've proved this yourself, Chris.

And this is true for any artist. We're all trying to communicate something. It's just some are better than others.

To answer your question, I write–whether it's an email, blog post, poem or proposal–because I have something to say.

And I want someone to understand it.

Secondary to that, I write in my journal to record ideas, organize thoughts. But that's not really writing. It's scribbling.

My recent post Scientism [When You Shouldn't Trust a Scientist]