HELLO!

I rarely am asked to preside at weddings these days. Recently, my memory took me back to a wedding that helped me understand how I experience public events. The father of the bride felt “guilty” he was not doing more to support the wedding. He was divorced from the mother of the bride. He had moved away. He wanted to be helpful. He called his daughter and offered to pay for a wedding planner. It would reduce the stress of the occasion. The offer was well received. At the rehearsal the planner shared with me some of the details of how the wedding would begin. One grandparent had recently died, he would be remembered at the outset, his sweater would be placed near the front pews. Also, a nephew, who was a Scottish dancer, would perform just before the processional hymn. All of this sounded wonderful, but I had a question. How would the guests, the friends sitting in the pews behind the family, experience all these moments? The planner was unconcerned, “This is the couple’s day, the family’s day, this is for them, not anyone else”.

There is truth in these words. Most events have two groups of people present, the heavily invested and the more casual observer. In the case of a wedding or funeral this means the family on one hand and the friends on the other. In my experience, whether the event is a wedding or a funeral, a non-profit seminar or a government information session, a business banquet or a recreational award dinner, there remains the presence of the “heavily invested” and the “casual observers”. And in the planning of said event, the heavily invested design and plan the gathering for other heavily invested attendees. In more recent times, one of the great improvements on event planning is the lens of inclusion and diversity, the intentional mindset to involve persons who often are overlooked, passed by. I am so pleased by this change, this way to consider a public event. But the consideration of the more “casual observer”, who could become a “heavily invested” participant if inspired to do so, remains secondary. When asked to help plan an event it is my input to consider how we can look at our presentations and help them be more accessible to a general audience. As a public speaker, it also informs how I talk about various topics, to reach not only the people in attendance who are "deeply invested” but also the “casual observer” who may require some background information that the more hardcore listeners may feel is “over-explaining”. When some sitting in the front row tell me, “What you said at the beginning, we already know that”, I respond with, “YOU already know that, but THEY (sitting behind you) may not know and WE want to draw as many people into this conversation as possible.” Churches are guilty of this when we use jargon, place names, terminology, that leave newcomers feeling left out. When people scoff at this “extra effort” I usually think of a topic the person who is frustrated with the “over-explaining” is not familiar with and offer some “insider” talk and language they would find confusing. “How do you feel when you hear that?”, I ask. We’ve all been the newcomer, trying to follow a new community and its particular (peculiar?) traditions, rituals, culture. That “extra effort” can make all the difference. Peace, Kevin