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
|
Analysis
Demonstrating Virtue
One function of Driscoll’s sermon is to defend the legitimacy and truth of the Bible. Driscoll opens his sermon with the statement:
We’re talking about the scriptures, we’re talking about the Bible and I know that up on campus they’re talking about it as well. Women’s studies classes, history classes, sociology classes, anthropology classes. You cannot avoid the impact of scripture on the canon of Western literature and history. So you guys are going to hear all kinds of negative, pejorative things about God’s Word, and I want to give you a bit of an overview of what God’s Word actually is and is not. (1:54)
Immediately, Driscoll sets himself up as a defender of the Bible and by extension, a defender of truth. He positions secular academia as an adversary. He tries to convince a Christian audience that their common worldview is under attack, but he has arrived to save the day. Driscoll proceeds to use his sermon to give facts about the Bible such as authorship, geographical origin, and genre, but also to offer insight into its value, relevancy, and legitimacy.
Further, Driscoll explains that he is merely trying to tell the truth, which he believes is found in Christianity. He appeals to his audience, “Follow the truth wherever it leads and you’ll end up loving Jesus” (48:22). Driscoll establishes himself as a guide, pointing the way towards truth. In so doing, he invites the audience to trust him as a guide. He asks the audience to allow him to point the way towards the truth.
Thus, the audience may interpret Driscoll’s virtue in the sermon. Driscoll positions himself within the sermon as a crusader for truth. He asks his audience to place their trust in him, that he will guide them away from falsehood towards the truth. If his audience does this, they assume that he is trustworthy, and thus attribute virtue. Additionally, by positioning himself as a defender of truth, Driscoll may also convince the audience of his virtue. If a Christian audience believes that their worldview is under attack, as Driscoll has convinced them, they naturally look for a savior to defend them. Driscoll emerges as that savior, who courageously steps forward to battle the forces of falsehood and secularism. The virtue of courage is attributed to him. This increases his intrinsic ethos.
Demonstrating Knowledge
Driscoll’s intrinsic ethos additionally benefits from his use of numerous and various biblical passages. During the course of the sermon, Driscoll demonstrates an incredible knowledge of the Bible. He often quotes or paraphrases lengthy passages from memory. In so doing, Driscoll portrays an intrinsic ethos of knowledge. The audience is given overwhelming evidence to believe that Driscoll is knowledgeable on his topic.
Most respondents found that Driscoll demonstrated expertise and intelligence. This comes primarily from his ability to quote the Bible from memory, without reference to his notes or the Bible itself. Examples of this in the sermon are too numerous to mention because of the frequency with which they occur. During the sermon, it does not seem that Driscoll has come with a list (even a long list) of passages to prove his point. Rather, the listener is given the distinct feeling that Driscoll has used his time to study and arm himself with a large arsenal of Biblical passages, which he is able to deploy at will. With the exception of an in-depth explanation of Isaiah 52-53 near the end of the sermon, Driscoll rarely looks at the pages of his large Bible or any prepared notes. His eyes are focused on the audience as his mind supplies biblical support to whatever point he makes.
By relying on memory more than the actual text in supplying his information, the audience is shown the character of a knowledgeable rhetor. Driscoll increases his intrinsic ethos by performing expertise and knowledge on the stage. He so clearly knows the Bible that the audience believes he has devoted an extensive amount of time not only to preparing the sermon, but to general biblical study as well. The audience may trust Driscoll more because he seems like an expert on the Bible.
Interview participants in both Group 1 and Group 2 found that Driscoll seemed to be highly knowledgeable about the topic he was addressing. Courtney stated:
He seemed very knowledgeable and he didn’t refer to his notes a lot. He was very engaged with the audience and he wasn’t glued to his notes, like he was very much quoting stuff that he knew and he quoted Scripture that he didn’t necessarily seem to have written down and he looked like he had done a lot to kind of learn about this.
Other participants noticed the same thing. Emily said, “He also seemed like he had a really good understanding of Scripture, because he was just quoting off Scripture, like, this reference, that reference, this reference.” When asked what caused him to view Driscoll as knowledgeable, Rudy replied:
His recitation of Scripture, seemingly from off the top of his head. Just how he knows, he’s able to join something from say the Old Testament into the New Testament and he’s not reading from a script and it doesn’t seem like he has a script memorized. It’s all just imparting knowledge that he has from his own training and experience through studying of Scriptures and philosophers and theologians and such.
To these participants, Driscoll demonstrated a distinct expertise through the recitation of memorized portions of the Bible.
This vast knowledge of the Bible reflected positively on Driscoll’s ethos for a number of reasons. First, the majority (four of six) of participants listed a good understanding and knowledge of the Bible as an incredibly important expectation of pastors. By demonstrating knowledge of the Bible, Driscoll fulfills their expectation and increases his ethos in their eyes. He demonstrates a value that they already hold.
Second, knowledge of the Bible implies an attempt to live by its moral guidelines. This emerged primarily with Kyle, who described Driscoll as a man of strong character. When probed on this point, he responded that he believed “the things you speak about say a lot about you.” Kyle believed Driscoll to be very articulate and biblically literate. He explained that since Driscoll is so knowledgeable about the Bible, he has obviously immersed himself in study. Kyle finished, “As a Christian, I believe that somebody who does that has strong character.” Although this line of reasoning is predicated on the assumption that reading the Bible leads to moral character, what is important here is that simple demonstrations of knowledge equated to positive intrinsic ethos for Kyle. Therefore, by demonstrating knowledge of the Bible, Driscoll comes across positively.
Finally, Driscoll’s intrinsic ethos is bolstered through his perceived expertise. When discussing pastoral ideals, Emily explained that she felt Western culture tends towards trusting experts. If a person is able to demonstrate that they have obtained a certain level of expertise in a given area, they are more able to persuade others. Emily felt that Driscoll matched this ideal: “He seemed to know a lot about the Scriptures and a lot about the history. He seemed to be pretty educated.” Through Driscoll’s performance of an expert’s ethos, the audience may be more willing to accept that Driscoll knows what he is talking about, leading to persuasion.
Demonstrating a Lack of Wisdom
As one watches the sermon, it becomes apparent that one of Driscoll’s draws as a rhetor is his sense of humour. He is supremely funny. Even his most ardent critic would find it difficult to watch the sermon without surrendering at least one involuntary chuckle. Through humour, Driscoll is able to disarm the audience and draw their engagement. However, Driscoll often butts against the line of propriety. In some instances, Driscoll’s jokes, although eliciting uncomfortable laughter, seem to go too far. This reflects poorly on him as a rhetor, and diminishes his portrayal of knowledge.
Two problematic instances arise where Driscoll’s humour may negatively affect his intrinsic ethos. Early in the sermon, Driscoll claims that non-Christians make a habit of stealing the Bible’s metaphors: “That’s why even the unbelievers, when they can’t come up with better metaphors, they steal ours. The rainbow, that was ours. That was ours. Just throwing it out there” (9:20). This joke meets uproarious laughter. While his immediate audience may find this hilarious, it remains a problematic statement since it uses the Pride movement as comedic fodder. By making light of a highly sensitive topic, Driscoll goes a step out of line with his humour. Recall that Aristotle’s explanation of knowledge included discernment. Driscoll demonstrates a lack of discernment in choosing his comedic targets by making light of such a sensitive topic and poking fun at so vast a community of people. This lack of discernment reflects negatively on him, and may lead to negative intrinsic ethos.
The second instance occurs midway through the sermon. Expounding on the difficulty of understanding some of Paul’s writing in the New Testament, Driscoll enumerates a number of examples. The problem comes when addressing the doctrine of predestination: “You’re like, ‘Oh really? God’s playing Duck Duck Damn? Really? ‘Duck. Duck. Damn! Duck, duck. Damn!’ Really?’” (33:02). In this instance, Driscoll’s congregation laughs, but hesitantly. In her interview, Emily responded similarly. She found this particular instance troubling. During the sermon, Emily chuckled uncomfortably at this joke, and then exclaimed, “That’s bad.” When asked to explain this reaction to the joke, she explained:
Predestination is such a hard topic, and for myself even, I struggle to think that God would purposely condemn some people to Hell. So to make light of it, and say ‘He’s playing duck, duck, damn’ as if God is just randomly choosing people and wants to condemn them to Hell, I just didn’t think it was very appropriate. It was making fun of something that’s very serious and that I don’t know if it’s the best thing to be making a joke about.
As Emily points out, Driscoll makes light of an incredibly serious topic: the eternal salvation of people’s souls. Driscoll depicts God playing a game with the souls of innumerable people, the outcome being their banishment to “an eternal Hell of conscious torment” (29:54). This is at best an ill-advised attempt at humor. To create a joke that equates cosmic torture with a game comes across as insensitive and cruel. With this joke, the audience again calls Driscoll’s discernment into question. Driscoll’s intrinsic ethos is negatively affected, and his persuasive power is limited.
Demonstrating Goodwill
Driscoll finishes his sermon by presenting a number of hopes and expectations he has for his audience. Following these closing remarks, he concludes the sermon with a prayer. In these closing moments, Driscoll most clearly demonstrates goodwill towards his audience.
As Driscoll approaches the end of his sermon, he tells the congregation in no uncertain terms what he hopes to have accomplished:
I want you to leave here tonight having firm faith in the Word of God. I want you to pick it up and study it to learn about Jesus. I want you to take the questions you have and pursue them vigilantly and diligently seeking answers for the rest of your life, even those parts that are hard to understand. When the Word of God is ostracized, when it is marginalized, when it is criticized, I want you to be the ones who have the courage to stand up and to say, “No, actually, I do love Jesus. I don’t mean to be mean or angry, but I also think that, uh, facts matter and we should follow the truth wherever it actually leads so let me tell you what the Bible actually says. Let me tell you what Jesus actually does. Let me tell you what Christianity actually is.” And I need you to have the courage to stand up and to be truthful and to be honest and to be loving and to be humble, but to say that if this is the book that God wrote, then this is a book that is to be respected, beginning with the people of God to whom it was written. (1:03:05)
From these concluding remarks, it is clear that Driscoll seeks his audience’s spiritual wellbeing. He wants them to grow and mature in their faith. This goal implies that Driscoll does not seek his own good from the sermon, but that of the audience. He operates out of care. This may be interpreted as goodwill, contributing positively to Driscoll’s intrinsic ethos.
Some interview participants did notice that Driscoll seemed to care very much about the wellbeing of his audience. Without referencing a specific example, Courtney commented that Driscoll “seemed like a father that didn’t want their kids to go wrong.” She perceived goodwill towards the audience, elaborating, “He cared so deeply for these people even though he may not know them that well. He seemed to have a really deep care for them and a deep concern for the issues that they’re facing right now.” Kyle, acknowledging that it is hard to ascertain these types of things from a single sermon, also believed that Driscoll cared about his audience: “His language at the end kind of implied that when he was saying that they were his friends, I guess, and that he cared about them and that Jesus cared about them.” While these types of instances are not common in the sermon, they may be interpreted as goodwill. This enhances Driscoll’s positive intrinsic ethos, and lends to his credibility as a speaker and pastor.
|