Te Eva has her own opinions and I have mine. Several times, we've been chatting about the organization of the San Pablo Parish lectors during our walks together and things do get more interesting every time our ideas diverge.
Take for instance the selection process of the lectors. Ate Eva likes the process to be rigorous. There's nothing bad about that but she also relishes the idea of culling or shortlisting prospective applicants to the elite fluent few. I, for one, do not like that idea.
I remember a moment in college during a get-together of all the religious clubs in the campus. There was one club member from Subdominant 7, the campus' choir, who exclaimed that she wasn't a singer until she joined the club. Well, she had the guts to admit she didn't have any singing prowess to speak of but still, the club admitted her until she could sing, if not on her own, then at least with others.
That's also the same thing I want to happen to the organization. I envision it to be an avenue in developing one's potential to become a good public speaker while serving God and the church. You got stage fright? We'll help you get over it. You stutter? We'll train you. You're not fluent enough? No problem, stick with us and, together, we'll make you better. That's the spirit I want to inject.
Of course, that starts by adopting a more egalitarian approach to would-be applicants. These applicants have gone so far as to muster the courage and self-confidence to audition, the best that we can do is to invite them in and train them.
This idea then precludes a "no-elimination" screening policy. In contrast to the above notion of eliminating the least desirable candidates, auditions and interviews under this new policy would simply be means to spot deficiencies in a candidate's skills and, if necessary, to identify methods to correct and improve the candidate's innate talent.
I believe everyone can be a good public speaker. Which is why it's such a waste that, as I've heard, several applicants do get turned down during the past auditions. I say we invite them all (Don't we have a manning problem to consider? Say, too many assignments yet so few volunteers?) and cross our fingers that everyone will get better.
True, the Lord deserves the best. A reader or a commentator for a Mass should at least be good in what he or she is doing. But we must not forget though that we also have an obligation to those who want to be lectors but are still "rough".
Come to think of it, everyone's a diamond who just needs a bit of polishing.
Take for instance the selection process of the lectors. Ate Eva likes the process to be rigorous. There's nothing bad about that but she also relishes the idea of culling or shortlisting prospective applicants to the elite fluent few. I, for one, do not like that idea.
I remember a moment in college during a get-together of all the religious clubs in the campus. There was one club member from Subdominant 7, the campus' choir, who exclaimed that she wasn't a singer until she joined the club. Well, she had the guts to admit she didn't have any singing prowess to speak of but still, the club admitted her until she could sing, if not on her own, then at least with others.
That's also the same thing I want to happen to the organization. I envision it to be an avenue in developing one's potential to become a good public speaker while serving God and the church. You got stage fright? We'll help you get over it. You stutter? We'll train you. You're not fluent enough? No problem, stick with us and, together, we'll make you better. That's the spirit I want to inject.
Of course, that starts by adopting a more egalitarian approach to would-be applicants. These applicants have gone so far as to muster the courage and self-confidence to audition, the best that we can do is to invite them in and train them.
This idea then precludes a "no-elimination" screening policy. In contrast to the above notion of eliminating the least desirable candidates, auditions and interviews under this new policy would simply be means to spot deficiencies in a candidate's skills and, if necessary, to identify methods to correct and improve the candidate's innate talent.
I believe everyone can be a good public speaker. Which is why it's such a waste that, as I've heard, several applicants do get turned down during the past auditions. I say we invite them all (Don't we have a manning problem to consider? Say, too many assignments yet so few volunteers?) and cross our fingers that everyone will get better.
True, the Lord deserves the best. A reader or a commentator for a Mass should at least be good in what he or she is doing. But we must not forget though that we also have an obligation to those who want to be lectors but are still "rough".
Come to think of it, everyone's a diamond who just needs a bit of polishing.
No comments:
Post a Comment