"The Ethos of Mark Driscoll: A Summary of an Undergraduate Thesis"
Benjamin SherickBenjamin 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 |
Analysis Cont.Extrinsic Ethos as a FactorWhile Driscoll accumulates positive intrinsic ethos in his sermon, his extrinsic ethos may overshadow and prohibit identification and persuasion. To examine this, I relied more heavily on the interview data. By comparing responses from Group 1 and Group 2 to questions relating to identification and to Driscoll’s persona, I was able to see how extrinsic ethos is a factor in Driscoll’s persuasive attempt. Interesting differences emerged between the two experimental groups in their responses to the interview questions. Respondents in Group 1, with little to no knowledge of Driscoll’s reputation, reported being only moderately affected by Driscoll’s reputation. They also described Driscoll in generally favourable terms. All respondents in Group 1 repeatedly described Driscoll as a passionate, intense, and convicted individual. Kyle commented, “He’s a very passionate follower of Christ; he cares a lot about what he believes.” In these instances, passion (usually considered an emotion) is equated with devotion. Kyle’s comments reveal that he interpreted Driscoll not only as a passionate individual, but a passionate Christian who displayed spiritual fervor and devotion. Equating passion with devotion seemed to endear Driscoll to the respondents, contributing to positive ethos. This may be related to one of Jesus’s teachings. Referring to false prophets, Jesus stated, “You will recognize them by their fruits” (Matthew 7:20), suggesting that the devout will yield good “fruit” while fakers will eventually produce bad “fruit.” A Christian audience would consider passionate devotion to Christianity, and particularly to Jesus, an example of good fruit. Thus, passion equates to “good Christian,” which in turn equates to good ethos. Although respondents in Group 1 described Driscoll in overall favorable terms, Driscoll’s intrinsic ethos still competed with his extrinsic ethos. Courtney alluded to Driscoll’s involvement in a cyber-bullying incident but admitted limited knowledge of the event. She also indicated that Driscoll’s controversial reputation caused her to feel guarded going in to the sermon. However, since the content of the sermon did not raise any red flags, her fears were displaced as the sermon progressed, although she did feel that she might be guarded listening to future Driscoll sermons depending on the content. The other participants in this group had less knowledge about Driscoll, and were therefore less affected by Driscoll’s controversial reputation. Respondents in Group 1 also indicated Driscoll’s reputation was less important for them than the content of his message. Emily stated that she was not affected at all by Driscoll’s reputation, focusing instead on the truth of the message: “It’s not that I go in saying this guy is a bad man who did something bad so I’m not gonna listen to him. It’s more like, does that align with what scripture says?” She described her mindset this way: I was thinking, is what he’s saying true? And then if I agreed with it, then I’m like, yes, what he’s saying is true, so you keep listening. And then if he wasn’t saying truth, I probably would have zoned out a bit more. Emily’s attitude indicated that her priority while listening to the sermon was not Driscoll’s reputation, but the truth of the sermon itself. She was more likely to go along with a controversial rhetor, so long as what he said met her expectations of truth. Overall, Group 1 respondents reported some level of identification with Driscoll. When respondents had limited or no knowledge of Driscoll’s reputation, they generally felt like they could consciously align themselves with his experiences or beliefs. Emily admitted that she identified with Driscoll due to shared beliefs about the Bible’s truth. Kyle admitted that, although it was hard to identify with someone he didn’t know much about, he did relate to Driscoll on the basis of shared faith. In these cases, a common worldview served as an arena for identification to occur. Since these participants had little to no knowledge of Driscoll’s extrinsic ethos, the reciprocal process of identification and intrinsic ethos was not disrupted by Driscoll’s reputation. Without knowledge of Driscoll’s reputation, the audience based their interpretation of Driscoll as a rhetor on the sermon alone. This enabled an audience with little to no knowledge of Driscoll’s extrinsic ethos to identify with him more easily, based on his effective intrinsic ethos. Group 2 was far more affected by Driscoll’s reputation. This was expected, as these participants were asked to actively consider Driscoll’s reputation immediately before listening to the sermon. Group 2 respondents tended to describe Driscoll more negatively. Rudy described Driscoll as confident to the point of brashness. Liz indicated that Driscoll might have a tendency to be too harsh. Scott described Driscoll as angry, intimidating, aggressive, and controlling. Scott specifically focused on Driscoll’s body language, such as frequent blinking and heavy breathing, which communicated menace, anger, and frustration. Rudy described Driscoll as a contradictory figure, with his onstage persona differing from his offstage persona, indicating that Driscoll represents a flawed figure. Scott went so far as to describe Driscoll as “a shitty dude.” For Group 2, Driscoll’s reputation also affected their ability to identify with him. This was best observed while interviewing Scott, who had the most knowledge about Driscoll. Scott felt he could not identify with Driscoll specifically in terms of Driscoll’s extrinsic ethos. While Scott noted that Driscoll’s arguments and language were familiar, he still felt that he could not identify with Driscoll. Rather, Scott admitted that based on his knowledge of Driscoll, he had no desire to identify with the pastor. He said, “I don’t want people to see that association.” In this case, identification with Driscoll was equated with association. Since Driscoll may be perceived as an unsavory character, identification with him leads to guilt by association. Scott indicated that he tried to remain objective while listening to Driscoll, but his high level of knowledge about Driscoll’s reputation did not permit this. He said that the New York Times article and the Matthew Paul Turner blog post coloured his view of Driscoll, and he engaged with the sermon through that lens. This gave him negative feelings towards Driscoll. Scott explained that the article and the blog post damaged Driscoll’s ethos, and that effect was compounded over time as Scott began reading the negative qualities he’d preconceived into the sermon. Driscoll’s reputation caused Scott to perceive him as authoritative, aggressive, intimidating, angry, controlling, and insulting. He stated that Driscoll’s presentation reminded him of a cult leader. This impeded Scott’s ability to listen to Driscoll. He explained, “It’s like if a man insulted me and then went to share his opinion, I’d have a hard time hearing his opinion.” In this case, a high degree of knowledge of the rhetor’s reputation negatively affected the rhetorical act. The rhetor was perceived with an incredibly negative extrinsic ethos, ultimately disrupting identification and persuasion. In the case of Group 2, the participants described viewing the sermon through the lens of Driscoll’s extrinsic ethos, which disrupted Driscoll’s persuasive attempt. While some of these participants tried to maintain objectivity, knowledge of Driscoll’s reputation subtly shaped their expectations. These participants were less likely to identify with Driscoll, and more likely to describe him negatively. Even when trying to dismiss Driscoll’s negative extrinsic ethos, they inevitably had to acknowledge it by either downplaying or diminishing it. Even though they tried to dismiss the elephant in the room, they still had to account for the elephant in some way. One unexpected finding also arose in both groups. Regardless of their degree of knowledge about Driscoll, practically every participant acknowledged that Driscoll could not fully meet his or her expectations. In instances where Driscoll fell short, most participants were willing to give Driscoll the benefit of the doubt. It is possible that this response is predicated upon the Christian belief that humans are sinful by nature. Repeatedly, the participants contrasted Driscoll with Jesus or acknowledged Driscoll was a flawed human. Emily qualified her description of the ideal pastor by stating, “It’s really hard because if you put your ideal pastor together, that person would never exist, you know? Like, the ideal pastor would be Jesus, which we can’t actually have.” Rudy found commonality between Driscoll and any potential critics, asserting, “He’s as flawed as the rest of us.” This led to an interesting attitude among participants. Regardless of their personal feelings about Driscoll, all participants seemed willing to some extent to give him the benefit of the doubt. Whether acknowledging that they could not condemn his bad behavior for a lack of information, acknowledging that every person is flawed and imperfect, observing that no human can live up to the ideal, or dismissing instances of poor behavior as a lack of discernment, all participants were slow to condemn Driscoll outright. Even Scott, Driscoll’s harshest critic among the participants, who admitted to wanting to paint Driscoll in a negative way, displayed hesitation in condemning Driscoll outright and acknowledged that depending on the context he would be more lenient. Repeatedly, participants expressed a desire to judge Driscoll and the sermon on its own terms, bracketing off any knowledge of his reputation or past behavior. Although reputation inevitably colored the lens through which the sermon was viewed, the participants attempted to maintain objectivity. Comparing responses from Group 1 and Group 2 showed that reputation does have an effect on identification, although it may not be as pronounced as I expected. Group 1 was far more likely to claim identification with Driscoll, while Group 2 was more hesitant to do so. Those with no knowledge of Driscoll’s reputation were much less guarded going into the sermon. As knowledge of reputation increased, so did guardedness and criticalness of Driscoll. Those with the most knowledge about Driscoll’s reputation were the least likely to hear him out or be willing to identify. However, the effect of reputation was perhaps more subconscious than conscious. Overall, participants seemed willing to give Driscoll the benefit of the doubt and attempted to remain objective. Participants from both groups indicated that the truth of the sermon was more important than the ethos of the speaker in their evaluation of Driscoll. As long as the content of the sermon was perceived as true, most participants were willing to engage with the sermon on its own terms. It must be stated again that these findings may not be generalizable or reliable. However, they do indicate that reputation does in fact impact the rhetorical process. While a reciprocal process takes place between identification and intrinsic ethos, extrinsic ethos has the potential to disrupt or overshadow that process. In Driscoll’s case, knowledge of his reputation colours how he was viewed. These perceptions had to be dealt with by the interview participants. They could indulge the perceptions and paint Driscoll negatively, as did Scott. They could bracket them off, as did Rudy. They could attempt to remain objective, as did Liz and Emily. However, these interviews indicate that extrinsic ethos did affect the process of identification and persuasion. |