Question Box: Rhetoric

Q: Can you help me define rhetoric, flattery, and justice?

A: Some thoughts on language.

My view of all speech is shaped by J.L. Austin's book How to do Things with Words. In it, Austin makes the profound insight that speech is best understood not as the communication of facts or ideas, but as action. There's an entire field of linguistic philosophy called "speech-act theory" which is based around his insight. However, it's not new. It contains the basic framework of medieval nominalism, the school Luther was trained in, which provided the framework through which he made such profound observations about the power of the Word of God.

Rhetoric: Rhetoric is the art of doing things with words. You could think of a speaker as a soccer player who has specific aims and obstacles. His job is to make his team score and prevent the other team from scoring. He may take many different routes to get there, including passing the ball back toward his own defense or goalie, or deliberately kicking the ball out of bounds. The essence of every action, however, is to use creative ways to eventually put the ball where he wants it to go.

The same is true in speech, although the rules are less clear, and the effect of your words is not nearly as obvious as whether or not you kicked the ball the way you wanted to. Rhetoric is the study & use of the rules and techniques that will help you to make the words act how you want them to. Here is what Luther said of the composer Josquin des Pres: "He is the master of the notes. They must do as he wills; as for the other composers, they have to do as the notes will."  The goal of the rhetor is to be a Josquin of words.

Flattery: Flattery is a form of cheap rhetoric. There is always more than one way of getting somewhere. If you want someone to come to an event, for example, you can tell them why you think they should come and try to make a compelling case for it, or you can appeal to their lower appetites, such as "there will be an open bar" and "gee, you're a swell guy who belongs at a great party." The latter one is flattery. It's not necessarily untrue or wrong, but it motivates from lower goals and should be avoided in most cases. BTW, the other side of the flattery coin is motivation through guilt, something preachers do too often.

Justice: Justice (in rhetoric) is when words line up with God's deepest plans for reality (truth in beauty). A just word not only achieves the aims of the speaker, but also glorifies God through nobility of expression, clarity of thought, and celebration of the good.

Westminster Revisited

The problem with reading the Westminster standards today is not only the language barrier between the 2010s US & the 1640s England, but also the centuries of reinterpretation and misinterpretation that stand between us and the Westminster divines (the authors of the standards). If you have ever picked up the WCF, the WLC, or the WSC and felt a sense of uncertainty about what exactly they were trying to get at, Letham is here to help. If you have ever believed that you perfectly understood the doctrines (and the boundaries of the doctrines) outlined in the Standards, then Letham is here to show you how wrong you are.

Read More

Book Review: Confession of St. Patrick

Probably the most interesting thing about this account is the extent to which Patrick expresses his own life in the words of Scripture. Nearly every few sentences, Patrick quotes a biblical account of suffering or triumph to express his own life’s story. I find it wonderful, because I think it says something about his relationship to God and to the other authors of Scripture. 

Read More

Book Review: Charles Marsh's Strange Glory, A Life of Dietrich Bonhoeffer

In spite of its many virtues, I would not recommend Strange Glory as an introduction to Bonhoeffer, because it would not make anyone want to know much more about the man. It is an important book for those who are interested in Bonhoeffer’s reception and summaries of his theology, but one hopes its influence will not linger long.

Read More

The Lord's Supper in Reformed and Biblical Consensus

Although the Lord’s Supper was instituted by our Lord as a lasting ordinance so that his people might commune together with their God and with one another, it has long produced precisely the opposite effect. Evidently it was among the central divisions of the early Corinthian church (1 Cor 11), and its divisive tendency is perhaps best captured when we consider that even the inaugural communion meal was accompanied by Satan’s presence and murderous betrayal

Read More