below par...

I'm a terrible writer.
Well, at least as it stands I'm a terrible writer; that's what Candler has shown me at least.  I think it's reflected in a lot of my posts on here as well.  The common critique that I get on tests and papers in class is my lack of ability to write cohesively.  I can structure an argument fairly well, at least when I spend time trying to develop it.  I can argue for it well also, but what I cannot do is make it sound fluid or pretty, which then actually makes it seems as if I can't argue for it.


I have a very good reason for this.  I don't spend time on it.  I mean how could I?  When I have a job, need to sleep and eat, and plenty else do on a specific day how much time can I afford to spend on some writing assignments?   Or when I have a test in which I must write two essays that I a grasp of the concepts and knowledge learned AND write cohesively, clearly and pretty, I default on the knowledge learned side and that in itself takes enough time.  I wonder how much better my grades would be if I didn't try and present all the information but presented a lot of information in a better way?

Personally I don't think I could do it.  I'd much rather present a lot of information in a haphazard, stream of consciousness sort of way.  If you've read any blogs of mine you can tell that this is my writing style.  It's the reason why I have sometimes several blogs in a row all pertaining to the same idea or thought. I don't really think out what I'm going to say necessarily, I just kind of say it.  I know what I want to say, but don't attempt to sit down and think about it for more than a minute or two before I actually put it down in writing.

This poses a problem... I want to be pastor, and would like to be a rather good preacher also, not to mention I'd also like to write pastoral books.  Of course I can't imagine how good they'll be if I just do it in some train of thought sort of writing.  Rob Bell does that and he's good at it; I think I'd just sound like a rambling idiot.