Custom Search

Monday, November 30, 2009

A "That" clause is not a complete sentence.

The Religion News Service posted an article this past weekend that began with a confusing mouthful. First came a sixteen-word introductory phrase followed by a fairly direct simple statement. The fairly direct simple statement, which said "...concerned evangelicals gathered last month to search the soul of their movement and find a new way forward." was supposed to set up the point that evangelicals need to refocus, but the article stuck that point in a completely new paragraph and created a sentence fragment in the bargain. Here is what I tried to untangle as I read the article:





Repentant for having spent a generation bowing at the altars of church growth and political power, concerned evangelicals gathered last month to search the soul of their movement and find a new way forward.


That evangelicals, who compose a quarter of the American population, must refocus on shaping authentic disciples of Jesus Christ. But how to do that in a consumerist society with little appetite for self-denial is fueling internal debate.


First of all, the "sentence" that starts with "That evangelicals..." is not a complete sentence. Second, the final "sentence" begins with "but," (which isn't always a crime), but this "sentence" then slogs forward with a 14-word subject ("how to do that in a consumerist society with little appetite for self-denial) before getting to the verb "is fueling". Whew! What a mess of a paragraph!

We all write things this way in our FIRST DRAFT, but most of us go back and proofread and polish after creating such monsters. Here is what I would suggest:


Concerned evangelicals are becoming repentant about the generation they spent bowing at the altars of church growth and political power. A group of them gathered last month to search the soul of their movement and find a new way forward.

Evangelicals, who compose a quarter of the American population, may need to refocus on shaping authentic disciples of Jesus Christ, but there was considerable internal debate at the gathering about how to do that in a consumerist society with little appetite for self-denial.

I hope you will agree that my rewrite is clearer and more direct. Please let me know what you think and if you have a better rewrite suggestion.

3 comments:

DB said...

Umm, that's not the story as written and publish on our Web site.

Here's what we published; note well the sentence "fragment."

SOUTH HAMILTON, Mass. (RNS) Repentant for having spent a generation bowing at the altars of church growth and political power, concerned evangelicals gathered last week (Oct. 13-15) to search the soul of their movement and find a new way forward.

*That evangelicals, who compose a quarter of the American population, must refocus on shaping authentic disciples of Jesus Christ has always garnered wide support.* But how to do that in a consumerist society with little appetite for self-denial is fueling internal debate.

Ruth Cook said...

Thanks for your comment, DB. This is interesting because I quoted from the story as it was printed in The Birmingham News this past Sunday. It ran with the byline "G. Jeffrey MacDonald, Religion News Service," and I was not aware that editing had occurred at the local level. Sorry I credited RNS with the grammar glitch. Not only does your website version NOT contain the sentence fragment, but your meaning is much clearer. Would you like me to run a new blog correctiing the credit and the point?

DB said...

That would be great. Thanks, Ruth.