Why Should Christians Study Rhetoric?

The Art of Persuasion

“The orator then, whom I am concerned to form, shall be the orator as defined by Marcus Cato, “a good man, skilled in speaking.” But above all he must possess the quality which Cato places first and which is in the very nature of things the greatest and most important, that is, he must be a good man. This is essential not merely on account of the fact that, if the powers of eloquence serve only to lend arms to crime, there can be nothing more pernicious than eloquence to public and private welfare alike, while I myself, who have laboured to the best of my ability to contribute something of value to oratory, shall have rendered the worst of services to mankind, if I forge these weapons not for a soldier, but for a robber.”

- Quintilian (Institutio Oratoria, XII.1)

Rhetoric is the crown of the verbal arts. The trivium is composed of three language related disciplines, namely, Grammar, Logic, and Rhetoric. Grammar focuses on the composition of various kinds of sentences, understanding their various parts and relations, so as to equip students to clearly understand and communicate ideas expressed through language. Logic builds upon grammar by teaching students how to arrange sets of statements (sentences which make truth claims) in order to form arguments in favor of, or in opposition to, an idea. Rhetoric takes command of both the Grammatical and Logical arts and adds to it the art of persuasion. The goal of a rhetorician is to use words so as to move their audience to either take some action or change their convictions about an issue.

The term “rhetoric” has a bad taste in the mouth of many who use it today. The popular use of the word has associations with manipulation and propaganda. Typically the term is expressed in statements like, “I’ve had enough of your rhetoric.” Or, perhaps, “Oh, that’s just the rhetoric of the Republican Party.” In other words, the way the term rhetoric is popularly used today makes it a synonym for the word “lies.” Go ahead and replace rhetoric with the word lies in the preview two statements…see?

To be fair, rhetoric has a long history of being misused and abused in such a way that it has gained this kind of reputation. Plato and Socrates were pretty hard on rhetoricians in their day because many of them were essentially persuaders for hire. One of the primary areas in which rhetorical skills were often employed in Ancient Greece was before the courts in criminal and civil trials. The courtroom remains a major outlet, in our own day, for the rhetorical arts and we know that people’s general opinion of lawyers has not changed much since the time of Plato.

Socrates’ primary criticism of rhetoric, however, really wasn’t a criticism of the art itself but of the way many professional rhetoricians employed it, namely, in service of injustice. In Plato’s dialogue known as Gorgias this is a primary concern which Socrates brings to the forefront of discussion time and time again. Socrates rightly says in that discussion, “If it were necessary either to do wrong or to suffer it, I should choose to suffer rather than do it.” Amen. For those who do wrong will actually suffer more harm in the end than those who have wrong done to them. Don’t believe me? Read The Consolation of Philosophy by Boethius and check back with me thereafter.

Socrates was highly critical of those who would persuade their audiences towards some belief or action apart from care for the truth. The rhetorical arts can be very powerful and move individuals and large crowds of people to take action, sometimes drastic action, and if this is done for any reason other than what is truly just it is indeed a very dangerous and wicked thing. Lawyers who labor to get murderers, thieves, and pedophiles off Scott-free are doing something very wicked. The right to a fair trial should not mean protecting the guilty from punishment, rather, it should guarantee that they are punished justly and proportionately to their crime. There is a way to defend a guilty person justly, but that is often not what occurs. Hence people hate lawyers.

Quintilian, to whom the quote at the top of this article belongs, was a Roman orator and teacher of rhetoric. He also recognized the potential evils to which these skills could be put. As such he emphasized the necessity of teaching virtue to his students so that they would be good men who were speaking well and on behalf of truth and justice. It is in this Quintilian spirit that Christians should take up the tools of Rhetoric and employ them for kingdom purposes. Rhetoric, like guns and spoons, is amoral. Guns don’t kill people, people kill people. Spoons don’t make you fat, intemperance does. Rhetoric does not wickedly manipulate people into believing lies, but wicked people do.

If Christians will not teach and study rhetoric then we leave ourselves and our neighbors open to be manipulated while being helpless to do anything about it. Just as we shouldn’t let only criminals have guns, nor should we allow it to be that only the wicked may make use of the tools of persuasion. We must learn the art of rhetoric so that the enemies of justice and truth can never say to us, “I would challenge you to a battle of wits, but I see that you are unarmed.”¹

In what follows I will offer just a brief sketch of what is taught in the discipline of rhetoric.

Cicero, in his De Inventione, writes of the five canons of rhetoric, namely, invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. Each of these focuses on a different part of the preparation of a speech.

1. Invention: Much like it sounds, this is the initial part of the creative process for speech writing. In this phase the orator decides what exactly his topic should be, what his major points in that speech will address, and what his opponents might say in response.

2. Arrangement: Once the invention process has been completed it is now necessary to order the material into a way most fitting to the occasion. Typically the arrangement of a speech should include the following elements:

   1. Introduction: This is where you introduce your topic and get your hearers interested in what you have to say. You can do this by means of sharing an anecdotal story, making a historical reference to a similar occasion as what you are about to address, asking a series of questions to arouse the hearers desire for the answers, give a great quote from a famous book or authority on the topic, or in some cases (if urgency and drama is demanded) you can skip the introduction and go straight in to the heart of your speech.

   2. Narration: In this section the rhetor should clearly state the issues at hand which demand either action or change of mind/disposition from the audience. It is appropriate to succinctly state the facts of the matter that everyone should agree upon. For example, if seeking to persuade your audience that abortion is a great evil, you might state the statistics about approximately how many abortions occur each year in the United States, you can state the various reasons which are often cited as to why abortion should remain legal, etc.

   3. Division: At this point in the speech it should be made clear where people disagree. To keep the same example, the orator may acknowledge that many circumstances may make a pregnancy undesirable (e.g. lack of financial security, pregnancy through sexual assault, etc.) but state that the unborn are valuable human persons with a right to life.

   4. Proof: The term is a bit misleading because of modern usage of the word “proof”. This section is essentially for making one’s case through arguments of various kinds. Your “proofs” are reasons why your audience should come to see the given issue your way.

   5. Refutation: This section anticipates the objections that might be raised against your proofs and answers them head on. When done effectively, this section of your speech leaves the audience without anything left to say against your view because you have already answered their remonstrance before they had a chance to give it.

   6. Conclusion: This is where the orator gives thought to what he wants to leave ringing in the ears of his audience. It is important to end on a bang and not a whimper. There are many ways to do this. You might conclude the story you left hanging in the introduction, you might recount how you have made your point clear and refuted all reasonable objections, you might finish with an authoritative quote that drives the nail all the way in. You have to read the situation and decide what is best.

3. Style: Having chosen the topic and arranged the speech to suit the occasion and audience there remains the work of polishing and refining. How you say what you say is at least as important as what you say at all. In this part of preparation the orator scrutinizes word choices, the word order within sentences, plays with tropes and schemes. The great orator leaves no word unturned in his mind. Like a master decorator of a house, so he makes sure no word is out of place, nor any allusion goes over the head, nor any metaphor rings hollow.

4. Memory: Here the orator works upon knowing his speech backward and forward. He may make use of “mind palaces” or pneumonic devices or many other tricks in order to keep his speech clear in his mind. The less he depends on notes while remaining faithful to the mastery of his composition the more he will appear confident and the master of what he is saying. Few things persuade like looking as though you know what you are talking about.

5. Delivery: Along with speaking accurately from memory there are other things to be considered in a successful delivery of a speech. Volume, making yourself heard but also varying in intensity when appropriate. Gestures, strong intentional movements of the body that correspond to what is being said (as opposed to weak thoughtless gestures that are meaningless). Intentional use of the stage, no fidgeting. Body posture and holding one’s gaze. Cadence and tone, etc.

Beyond the canons of rhetoric there are also the modes of persuasion which need to be considered. Canons focus upon content, modes focus upon the actual forces which motivate the actions and change the minds of audiences. There are three modes of persuasion which have been generally recognized from ancient times and they hold true as ever today.

1. Logos: This refers to the mode of persuasion which appeals to man’s reason. These are arguments centering upon logic. Premises are stated, conclusions are drawn. If the argument is sound (valid in structure and true in its premises) then the hearer should be persuaded by the conclusion even if before they heard the argument they formerly held a different view. Paul seeks to persuade the Athenian philosophers this way when he argues, “Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the divine being is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and imagination of man.”

2. Pathos: If mankind were only a rational animal then logos would be enough. It will be quickly agreed upon, however, that man is not merely a rational animal but also an emotional animal. Such being the case Pathos is the mode of persuasion which appeals to man’s emotions. A classic example of this is when Antony appealed to the Roman people’s emotions during his funeral oration for Julius Caesar. The speech famously begins, “Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears…”

3. Ethos: This mode of persuasion, in some ways, is less about what the person speaking says and more about who they are. Ethos refers to the character of the speaker and the weight of his person, or personality, to garner his hearers trust. In this case they may not know or understand his reasoning for what he wants them to do, they might not even be particularly emotionally tied to the issue, but they trust and respect the speaker and he is telling them they ought to care and act and so they will. Herodotus says of Themistocles that “the Athenians were persuaded by his words. For they were ready now to do whatever he advised; since they had always esteemed him a wise man, and he had lately proved himself most truly wise and well-judging.”

In truth, most good speeches involve all three of these modes of persuasion to some degree but the occasion and audience will determine which mode should receive the greater portion.

Christians and Rhetoric

Augustine has said, “The truth is like a lion; you don't have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself.” He’s not wrong, truth has teeth of its own and it is the most powerful ally an orator can have at hand. This is partly true because, as Mark Twain stated, “When you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.” Lies have a way of catching up to you and destroying your credibility.

But while I credit Augustine with saying something important and mostly true, I think we have all witnessed the man speaking truth next to the man speaking lies while realizing, in horror, that the liar is winning the audience. Truth may be a lion but weakly presented truth is a sick and whimpering lion of which no one is afraid. The art of rhetoric in the hands of good people is an important weapon to wield against those who would otherwise manipulate audiences for their own malignant ends, or for the ends of whoever is paying the orator’s bills.

Christians have a moral obligation to speak truth. Christian leaders have a moral obligation to speak it well.

We could spend much time looking at the speeches/sermons of the prophets, Jesus, Peter, and Paul and taking notes on the mastery with which they make use of the canons of rhetoric and modes of persuasion. There is nothing unchristian about persuading people to believe what is true. When truth and justice are both our means as well as our end, there is no Christian limitation upon the tenacity and vigor with which we ought to seek to persuade our audiences. It is the consistent witness of Scripture, and of saints throughout church history, that we have a responsibility to speak what is true and we ought to use any good and just means at our disposal to serve the kingdom of Christ.

Of the wicked orator the Psalmist writes, “For there is no truth in their mouth; their inmost self is destruction; their throat is an open grave; they flatter with their tongue.” But of the righteous the Psalmist says, “He who walks blamelessly and does what is right and speaks truth in his heart; who does not slander with his tongue and does no evil to his neighbor, nor takes up a reproach against his friend; in whose eyes a vile person is despised, but who honors those who fear the Lord; who swears to his own hurt and does not change; who does not put out his money at interest and does not take a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things shall never be moved.”

Amen.

1. Most people attribute this quip to Shakespeare but, apparently, it is actually unknown who said this first.