"The Ethos of Mark Driscoll: A Summary of an Undergraduate Thesis"

 Benjamin Sherick

Benjamin Sherick graduated from the University of Calgary in 2015 with a Bachelor of Arts - Honours First Class in Communication Studies and a minor in Religious Studies. His academic interests include rhetoric, pop culture, music, and religion. He currently resides in Alberta with his wife.

Contents

Introduction

The Rise & Fall of Mars Hill Church

What are the Scriptures?

Theory & Method

Ethos

Ethos Cont.

Conducting Interviews

Analysis

Analysis Cont.

Conclusion

Works Cited

Conclusion

The project summarized herein sought to understand to what extent the ability to persuade relies on ethos as an aspect of identification. To answer this question, the project asked two sub-questions about Mark Driscoll’s ethos: 1) how does Mark Driscoll construct and present intrinsic ethos within the bounds of a sermon? and 2) to what extent is Driscoll’s extrinsic ethos a factor in the audience’s interpretation of the pastor’s overall ethos? These questions were answered by critically analyzing one of Driscoll’s sermons and interviewing a number of twenty-something-year-old Christians. I found that Driscoll was able to construct positive intrinsic ethos through displays of virtue, goodwill, and knowledge. However, Driscoll’s negative extrinsic ethos had the potential to overshadow his intrinsic ethos, disrupting identification and persuasion.

Driscoll is a compelling figure. It is clear that he is both a talented and experienced rhetor. He is clearly comfortable in the pulpit. Further, he is able to demonstrate the elements of intrinsic ethos (virtue, goodwill, and knowledge) in a number of ways. Driscoll positions himself as a defender of truth, implying virtue. He clearly knows his topic, as evidenced through his extensive use of the Bible. His purpose, as explained at the conclusion of his sermon, is to benefit his congregation. These elements contribute to positive intrinsic ethos. However, Driscoll is not a perfect rhetor. In particular, his poorly thought-out jokes may indicate a lack of sensitivity and discernment. This aspect of his sermon hints that he may not demonstrate knowledge as much as one initially believes.

Extrinsic ethos, though not a pronounced factor, did subtly shape responses to the rhetorical act. Although Driscoll carefully and successfully constructs positive intrinsic ethos through his sermon, his negative reputation has the potential to be disruptive. Driscoll’s intrinsic ethos and extrinsic ethos are therefore in conflict. This leads to the conclusion that rhetors must be mindful of their reputation. It may not be enough to simply craft great intrinsic ethos. Extrinsic ethos must be carefully maintained as well.

Two unexpected findings also came to light in this project. Although the interview participants had varying degrees of knowledge about Driscoll’s reputation and also had many preconceived notions about Driscoll, almost all respondents expressed a desire to give Driscoll the benefit of the doubt. Many participants acknowledged that Driscoll’s reputation had the potential to affect their view of the sermon, but they tried to bracket off that knowledge so as not to allow it to color their reception of his sermon. Where this was not possible, participants remained conscious of the fact that their knowledge of Driscoll’s reputation was affecting their view of him. This leads to the conclusion that the effect of reputation was consciously minute for these participants. They constantly downplayed the negative and controversial aspects of Driscoll’s reputation, and reminded themselves that he, like themselves, were imperfect humans. While the link has yet to be explored, it may be interesting to interrogate whether this is a unique sentiment for Christians. It may be that since these participants share a worldview predicated on concepts of sin and forgiveness, grace and mercy, that these participants are more likely to discount personal failings in a rhetor. This could cause the lack of overt impact from reputation.

A final unexpected finding of this study was the role of logos in the identification and persuasion process. Based on the findings of this project, it seems that accurate content was more likely to enable identification than good ethos. A number of participants expressed that it was the content of the sermon, and not the character of the speaker, that mattered most to them. Many expressed that bad theology would have been more detrimental than bad ethos. If the sermon had not reflected truth consistent with their worldview, they would have been more likely to tune Driscoll out.

In sum, reputation and ethos must be carefully considered by a rhetor, but perhaps no more than any other aspect of the rhetorical process. Reputation and ethos may not exhibit an overt impact on the audience, but it does subconsciously shape their opinions of the rhetorical act. Reputation serves to strengthen one's argument, without necessarily undermining it. However, that danger still exists. It is critical that rhetors pay attention to their overall ethos, both intrinsic and extrinsic.

Due to the limitations inherent in this study, a number of avenues for future research exist to interrogate the findings of the project summarized herein. Undertaking future research may help the findings set forth in this article to be more generalizable and reliable. First, the same project could be carried but with more interview participants. This would allow a researcher to determine if the findings hold. If the findings of a larger project with more interview participants were consistent with this project, the findings could be more generalizable. Second, it is possible that the findings of this project are limited to a Christian audience. As discussed above, it is possible that a Christian worldview made the participants in this study amenable to discounting Driscoll's reputation. A future researcher could explore whether the findings of this project are actually related to the Christian emphasis on forgiveness, or if the findings of this project relate to some other factor. Alternatively, a comparison could be carried out between a Christian subset and a secular subset to determine what role worldview plays in the effect of reputation. Finally, a similar study could be conducted, shifting the focus from ethos to pathos or logos. As well, a study could be conducted examining the interplay of all three. This could lead to interesting conclusions about preaching as rhetoric.