This is For You Chirpy!

You can watch his fingers curl to form the gesture at 0:18 below:


Edit: I think if anyone goes to C3 to hear Phil Pringle speak, this game is really fun to play. Just sit and count. I’ll collect the stats if you mail them to me. 🙂

13 thoughts on “This is For You Chirpy!

  1. What’s with the “lookin” and “doin”? For some reason the letter “g” doesn’t exist when he’s in front of a camera. I’ve noticed this for years – he doesn’t do it in private conversations. Is it just to be “cool”? Chirpy, is this a sign too? Is it because God starts with a “g”? 🙂

  2. Sure was. That devil sign actually creeped me out.

    It subtly sneeked up and almost felt like a taunt. It was such a perfect moment for it to creep up from under the camera frame and shock me while pastor and wife are smiling and hugging while everyone is cheering.

    I don’t believe there is anything devilish behind it. I thought it was great for Chirpy to highlight Pringle doing it. It actually gives me something to do in his sermons.

  3. @ Specks – it would be great to read your “critique” of a sermon by PP, along the lines of Chris Rosebrough’s sermon reviews. If you are attending a service, take some notes, check the context and see if he start doing the “heresy two step” with the Word out-of-context etc.

    Those silly hand signs are nothing as we all know, (or early onset Dupuytren’s contracture)

  4. Heresy two-step definition…….

    “The Heresy Two-step starts with two feet on the text. The allusion must be given that the text is going to be taught on. Then a sliding step backwards is taken into an abstraction. You move from the text to an idea about the text or to a word in the text. Once the text is abstracted and a general principle or something along these lines is made. You can now wiggle around and go in any direction you want. You can make the text say whatever you want. Instead of teaching the text you are pontificating on this abstraction which was drawn from the text.”
    Ps Bryan Wolfmueller

  5. That ‘heresy two step’ is quite a good analysis. I was used to the one where they’d hone in on one word in the text. Then, Roget’s Thesaurus might come out, and eventually the preaching was even on an entirely different word at times. The scripture was just a useful place to start a segue.

    To be fair, my most recent church was better than that! I’m not sure I can remember them doing that there, even under the new leadership (certainly not under the old), but its very familiar from memories of PP. Also, I saw Brian Houston doing exactly this on TV the other day.

  6. Sounds like its worth a listen – when I get the chance to listen!

    I am quite interested in how the messages are constructed. Probably because I sat through so much of that kind of thing at one stage under PP. That might be one of the reasons I began to feel like I was going incredibly stale there, and began to search for teaching with more depth. At my next church, the preaching was vastly improved. You were always left with any number of things to think about, and whether you agreed or not, the message was worth listening to. I think you would have enjoyed that too, if we’d been there together at the time.

Comments are closed.