Category Archives: Rhetoric

Descriptions of Rhetoric, discussions of its use today.

May 7, 2025 · 10:19 pm

God in a Box: Encountering a Biblical Worldview

As usual, we’re going to take a walk through logic–only this time, we’ll look at the logic of a biblical worldview itself.

Some people, who call themselves Christians, when describing their own theology, show that they would really rather not land on anything very specific. Their beliefs may be pretty eclectic, collected from other philosophies or worldviews. They might agree that Jesus rose from the dead, or perhaps that He was just a great teacher. They might believe the Bible is only partially true, much of it symbolic or figurative language, certainly not all of it relevant. Perhaps they believe the universe could not possibly have been created in six days. Or that there are many paths to heaven.

Let’s start with the very basic, foundational belief, which allows us to walk down a logical road: the belief that Christ died on a cross and rose again from the dead. This would imply something supernatural. Indeed, it affirms that Christ is God.

If Christ is God, how did He communicate to mankind? He chose to communicate through His word, the Bible. The Gospel of John says, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being by Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. In Him was life, and the life was the light of men” (John 1:1-4). Of course, if you deny that the Bible is the Word of God, your train of logical thought stops there.

However, if you agree that Christ rose from the dead, you must somehow take a logical misstep to deny that the Bible, His Word, is true. It is either all true or not at all. If it is not at all true, then Christ did not rise from the dead; it’s just myth. Which do you believe?

Let’s take this logical train in reverse now. If you believe that Christ rose from the dead, but that the Bible, His word, is not completely true, then how can you believe that Christ is God? If His word is not true, then He is a liar. Then He cannot be God.

Some would like to choose which parts of the Bible they can agree with. Some of it is just too hard. That Adam and Eve story, for instance. Just myth, don’t you think? And how about the flood? Sure, it probably did flood, but not worldwide. Not really. But you see, if you decide what is true or untrue, what is or is not relevant, in the Bible, you make yourself the authority, not God.

However, nothing in God’s character would show that He is only partly true. He keeps His word; He fulfills His promises. The Old Testament is replete with prophecies, some of which came true within a generation or two, and others which took centuries to fulfill. Some will be fulfilled at the end of time. Jesus Christ, walking the earth, healing the sick and the lame, being crucified and rising again, fulfilled hundreds of prophecies to the letter. Partly true, or fully true?

Christ is not the only way to heaven? Depends on what you believe? Again, the Bible says that He is the only way to the Father. Going back down that logical train, you would indeed have to believe that Christ, who was raised from the dead, is God, and that His Word is true, in order to believe that He is the only way to heaven. The question gets begged, why would you want to go to a heaven whose God you do not believe anyway?

As for creation in six days or countless millennia, to say that God could not have created the universe in six days is to limit Him, to put Him in a box. Could He create the universe? “Yes, but not in six days.” Really? So He can create anything, but not on His terms–just on yours? I’m not willing to limit His power according to my own limited perspective. I’m willing to believe that the God who raised Christ from the dead in order to save me from the penalty of sin could create the universe and all within it, to look exactly as it does today, in the amount of days He chose. I’m willing to keep Him the authority rather than making myself the authority.

Finally, I must encourage my readers to understand that to define faith based on your own perspective is dangerous. I believe in Christ alone, through faith alone, by grace alone, communicated by His Word alone. Anything else is to create a new religion. Any single part of the Christian faith, taken alone and expanded, added to, or misshapen, is a new religion. We are warned not to trust any warping, reshaping, adding to, or redefining that pure Word of God.

I tremble at the idea of redefining my faith, my God, or His action on the cross to atone for sins. He purchased me with His blood, that I might be His own, to the glory of His name. Though I cannot fully understand it all, nor can I fathom the mind of God, I will not try to redefine it so that it is more palatable or “relevant.”

“See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ. For in Christ all the fulness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and you have been given fullness in Christ, who is the head over every power and authority.” Colossians 2:8-9

Pick up the Bible if you haven’t read it before. A good place to start is the gospel of John. For outside reading, I recommend:

Kevin DeYoung’s Daily Doctrine, a readable collection of Christian doctrine. I read one topic each day (manageable 500-word topics).

R.C. Sproul’s Knowing Scripture.

1 Comment

Filed under Biblical Worldview, Rhetoric

April 30, 2025 · 3:23 pm

Distraction: keep ’em off-topic

The story goes like this: fugitive peasants being chased by authorities would drag a bunch of fish across their trail as they escaped, in an effort to divert the attention of the tracking dogs. Another story tells of hunters tying fish to a string and dragging them along a trail to train their dogs.

Either way, these stories tell the origin of the term “Red Herring.” Today, when someone accuses the other of using a Red Herring, he does not refer to someone who loves to drag fish around. He refers to a logical fallacy, the fallacy of distraction.

Red Herrings appear in many forms. They can be ad hominem fallacies, taking on a rich, lovely double-whammy and earning extra bonus points, if you’re counting fallacies in an argument. One could, in a debate, call his opponent a slimy dog, thus earning the simple ad hominem–distracting from the main point by attacking your opponent. Or, to add depth to one’s fallacy, one could not only slander, he could accuse his opponent of wrongdoing, causing him to stop in his tracks and defend himself, thus completely derailing the entire debate.

In the political world this commonly happens before elections. Sometimes, in the month before a major election, the “October Surprise,” reveals some huge dirt on an opponent. Then said opponent must spend time and resources defending himself instead of concentrating on bringing home the votes. The one dishing the dirt laughs all the way to the voting booth. He has taken attention off the vital points of the campaign, thus perhaps winning the election, or at least doing some major damage to his opponent’s reputation.

Sometimes listening to political commentators frustrates me. I want to hear the whole argument, but instead I find the opponents shouting each other down or diverting from the main point into little side issues that don’t matter. “How did you get yourself dragged down that trail? Get back to the topic!” I find myself shouting to the TV. And yet it happens again and again.

Debaters can (and should) control the argument better,  by saying, “Now, you’re trying to pull me away from the main point here. Let’s go back and answer the real topic at hand.”  Or a candidate could say “I reject the premise. Let’s get back to the question.” Who gets the victory when someone is dragged away from the main point? That’s right–your opponent.

In class, I call this a “bunny trail.” Students love to try them out. Discussion goes in one direction; a student takes it down some irrelevant line of discussion. If the teacher does not maintain control of the discussion, guess who does? Now, sometimes a bunny trail can be a great place for a while. Good side discussions can become a learning experience themselves. I just want to have some measure of control of where we go down that little trail, and haul it up short if we go so far we can’t see the main road.

So Fallacies of Distraction can take several forms. If you were in a debate, could you recognize them, divert them, and return to the point at hand? It’s harder than you think, when the heat of debate is on.

For more information about fallacies and logic, check out my Classical Rhetoric text book, Thoughts Clothed in Words, at amazon.com.

Leave a comment

Filed under Logical Fallacies, Rhetoric

April 22, 2025 · 9:35 pm

“Soft tyranny”

Recently a commentator labelled someone’s ad baculum fallacy as “soft tyranny.” This intrigued me so much, I decided to look a little deeper. Ad baculum is another fallacy of distraction, like ad hominem. If you can pull your opponent off topic–get him to forget the subject you were debating–you win. Ad hominem attacks the opponent with a slur (“Oh yeah? Well, you’re stupid!”). Ad baculum slips in a veiled threat.

Ad baculum can be as sleazy as an outright threat: “Someone might get hurt if he insists on sneaking around in my back yard.” It can be backhanded, almost as an afterthought. “Oh, he won’t try anything. I’m sure he cares about his family.”

Adolf Hitler was the master of fallacy. In 1938, while contending to the world that Germany was no warlike nation, Hitler inserted a pretty great ad baculum fallacy into a speech:

“If ever international agitation or poisoning of opinion should attempt to rupture the peace of the Reich, then steel and iron would take the German people and German homesteads under their protection. The world would then see, as quick as lightning, to what extent this Reich, people, party, and these armed forces are fanatically inspired with one spirit, one will.” (February 20, 1938)

Not really a threat…just a hint of one. Enough to make someone back off just a little.

In politics, ad baculum fallacies abound on all sides. During one campaign, I believe it was Clinton vs Dole, the Democrats insisted that if the Republicans won, old people would be thrown out into the streets (Medicare would be destroyed), children would starve (the public school lunch program would end), and the waters of this country would be poisoned (the EPA would lose its funding). Yes, folks, the monsters want your vote. Don’t give it to them!

And in 2010, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi spoke out about a proposed mosque that some Muslims wanted to build in the shadow of Ground Zero in New York City. She said, “I join those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded?  How is this being ginned up?” If it wasn’t intentionally done, it at least had the (perhaps-unintended?) effect of stifling dissent. (“Wow,” one might think, “if I speak out on this issue, someone will be nosing around in my business. I don’t want to attract attention to myself like that. I’d better be quiet.”) Needless to say, this is a violation of the First Amendment, but since it’s a veiled threat, you can’t really call it a direct threat, right? Clever!

Ad baculum, then, has consequences: to shut up one’s opponent because he fears the threat, and to move the discussion from the topic at hand onto a side note or distraction. Striking fear in the heart of your opponent definitely fits the bill of what one commentator calls “Soft Tyranny.” The threat of harm will stifle a good, hearty debate. It’s a fallacy, it’s used by folks on all sides of the political spectrum, and it’s incredibly powerful.

For more discussions on logical fallacies, see my Classical Rhetoric text, Thoughts Clothed in Words, available on Amazon.

Leave a comment

Filed under Logical Fallacies, Rhetoric

April 15, 2025 · 6:07 pm

Ad Hominem: tool of teens and politicians

I remember fighting with my sister, and when things started going badly, I resorted to the ever-useful “Oh yeah–well, you’re stupid!” There–that’ll show HER.

My own children began using that brilliant slur, and many others just like it, when they ventured into sibling arguments. A couple of them tried telling me they didn’t do well in class because the teacher was stupid and ridiculous. They tried that until we home schooled and I worked alongside the teachers in our little home school program. (A smart kid won’t try that too often when the mom is one of the teachers. I have smart kids.)

Anyway, the attack on one’s opponent, called ad hominem, occurs when one 1)runs out of a reasonable line of argumentation or 2)is losing the argument. It is a fallacy of distraction. See how easily it works? Political candidate “A” calls his opponent “B” a tool of Wall Street because he used to be a banker. Suddenly the argument becomes not a discussion of issues, but a defense of one’s personal character.  Success! “A” now has the upper hand, and “B” is on the run.

Watch any politician who wants to defend himself against accusations of ethical violations. When a reporter asks him a question regarding these accusations, what does he do? He tells the reporter his question was “dumb.” He confronts the reporter, repeating that his questions are “dumb,” and belittles the young reporter for wanting to make a name for himself in the news business. Has he answered the question? No, and the reporter doesn’t push through the ad hominem attack; he follows right down the path this politician wants him to go: away from the discussion at hand. It almost makes you think of a wild animal trapped in a cage, lashing out viciously. Oops–was that an ad hominem attack?

Ad hominem is one of the simplest fallacies to spot, because it is so easy to commit. It is part of our human nature, to reach for a low point instead of appealing to a more upright, honest level of discussion. Why go for honesty when you can drag someone through the mud?

When you watch election campaigns, see if you can spot ad hominem attacks. The streets will be filled with the mud of these filthy, childish tactics. How should a politician, or a news reporter or commentator, answer ad hominem attacks, instead of allowing himself to be driven down the muddy route?

For more information about ad hominem and other fallacies, see my text book, Thoughts Clothed in Words.

Leave a comment

Filed under Logical Fallacies, Rhetoric

May 20, 2019 · 10:42 pm

An Attack on Pro-Life Governor Aids the Pro-Life Cause

Jim Carrey on AbortionAnti-Life actor-turned-cartoonist Jim Carrey scored a major point–for his opponents. Without meaning to, his pictorial depiction of a late-term abortion is disgustingly accurate, but it doesn’t help his cause.

He depicts the governor of Alabama being suctioned out of a womb, using a late-term-abortion technique of a powerful suction that quite literally sticks a needle into the skull of an unborn baby and sucks the brain, and all living material, out of the mother’s womb.

This could be laughable if it weren’t so heinous. Did Carrey stop to think twice about the truth behind his cartoon, or was he so bent on bloodying his opponents that he just dashed the cartoon out in a moment of creative inspiration? You be the judge: does this help or harm the pro-abortion argument?

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Biblical Worldview, Propaganda, Rhetoric, Uncategorized

Tagged as

April 3, 2018 · 8:32 pm

Watch your language when you write

angrymobSeveral years ago I was invited to address a group of Christian leaders in Canada, about church writing groups and the need for Christians to write in a compelling manner in whatever marketplace writers may find themselves. My aim was to teach about worldview and about including God’s word in reaching a secular audience. (Before you read further, in my defense I will say that I had previously given this same talk to several different Christian audiences.)

I began to make a point about how your harsh words and insensitive writing will polarize an audience before even reaching your main point. Using a letter to the editor I had found, I began reading it aloud so they could hear a harsh, insensitive writer spouting venom about homosexuals. My second step was to dig into the letter together with my audience so that we could find a more appropriate way to make a point.

I’ll admit to the irony of what happened next.

Before I could finish reading the offensive letter out loud, a quarter of my audience had stood, turned their backs, and exited the room.

What could I have done differently? I warned them, up front, that this would be something we could–we should–all learn to do better. Perhaps I should have brought up my main points earlier on, so they could see that I myself intended no insult. Before planning my talk, I should have asked some questions of the conference organizers, in the hope of learning more about the attendees.

It has always been my policy to remember first what Paul instructed to his readers–and what I was going to teach my audience–to do:  “Conduct yourselves with wisdom toward outsiders, making the most of the opportunity. Let your speech always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that you will know how you should respond to each person” (NASB Colossians 4:5-6). In this case, my message failed to reach many people in my audience because I didn’t understand how to “respond to each person.” 

Consider, though, that you can’t always anticipate how each audience member will react. Better to hold on to the truth than to water down your message.

Think about who your audience is: who reads your discourse or sits in your audience? Think about them and write so that they can understand.

This means you need to evaluate–or maybe anticipate–your audience before you write. Now, if you are a Rhetoric student, your audience is not so vast:

  • Your teacher
  • Your parents, who will proofread
  • Your classmates

Or maybe you have a larger audience:

  • Readers of your blog or other social media
  • Readers of your letter to an editor
  • Your youth group
  • Classmates, teachers, administrators, and parents at your school–perhaps in a graduation assembly or thesis defense

Perhaps you have a passionate response to something in the news, or you want to join a demonstration and make your voice heard. Who will be that audience?

Most importantly, you want to craft a speech or discourse in the best light so that your audience will be moved to take action. And alongside of that, you must keep in mind WHO your audience is, and be sure to write so that they understand what you’ve said.

In the situation above, what could I have done differently? Before I read aloud that offensive letter to the editor, I DID tell them what they were going to hear and that I wanted to work with them on less strident language. What can I conclude from their hasty departure? Either they didn’t hear my introduction, or they just couldn’t stomach what I was reading out loud. It’s hard to know now. Something about the subject caused them to shut down and walk off.

This is bound to happen sometimes. If we’re speaking the truth in love, at times it won’t matter that you have the best intentions. Truth offends. Often, though, we need to:

  1. Observe who we are trying to reach,
  2. Review what we’re going to say, and
  3. Commit our words and our presentation to the Lord, asking him for wisdom.

In his instructions to the faithful in Colossae, Paul writes a beautiful passage on how to speak with others both inside and outside of the church:

Put on then, as God’s chosen ones, holy and beloved, compassionate hearts, kindness, humility, meekness, and patience, bearing with one another and, if one has a complaint against another, forgiving each other; as the Lord has forgiven you, so you also must forgive. And above all these put on love, which binds everything together in perfect harmony. And let the peace of Christ rule in your hearts, to which indeed you were called in one body. And be thankful. Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly, teaching and admonishing one another in all wisdom, singing psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, with thankfulness in your hearts to God. And whatever you do, in word or deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him. (ESV Colossians 3:12-17, emphasis added)
Be that salt and light to your audience, whoever they are. Speak the truth in love. Have compassion for the lost. Put on love.

Leave a comment

Filed under Apologetics, Biblical Worldview, Rhetoric, Uncategorized, Writing

February 28, 2018 · 10:08 pm

The Style of Good Rhetoric

Aristotle classified five “canons” of Rhetoric: Invention, Arrangement, Style, Memory, and Delivery. Our own course of Biblical Worldview Rhetoric is also divided in the same manner.

Style arrives midway through our course with good reason. Invention–the method of discovering what to write about and how to prove our point, and Arrangement–deciding how to argue and in what order it will happen, provide us with a strong foundation. We might call it the “bones” of an argument.

Once we have 1) arrived at our arguments and 2) arranged them effectively, then we must 3) skillfully and artfully weave our words together in a pleasing, clear, compelling manner. Consider this the clothing that covers the flesh and bones of your argument.

Skillful writing:

  • Uses proper grammar.
  • Chooses the right word for the right meaning. Vague writing will inevitably confuse the audience.
  • Finds compelling ways to paint a word picture in the mind of the audience. One homeschool writing curriculum calls it “dressing up” your writing.
  • Is not redundant: it does not repeat itself retelling in a repetitious manner. (Got it?)

Aristotle uses a bit of sarcasm when discussing what seems to be common sense: if you want to persuade, do not be ambiguous “unless, indeed, you definitely desire to be ambiguous, as those do who have nothing to say but are pretending to mean something” (Rhetoric Book 3). Your audience might be momentarily charmed by clever words, but they can detect specious reasoning and a thin façade of argumentation.

Think about your favorite writers. Why do you love to read what they write? They probably weave together a great story that keeps you engaged, make characters come to life, hold you in suspense, make you love the protagonist and hate his enemy. I agree with all of that, and I’ll add another quality, because I love words: the best authors paint an engaging word picture that might make me pause and admire how that was done.

I just finished reading another book in Alan Bradley’s Flavia de Luce series, The Grave’s a Fine and Private Place. Seriously, go pick up the first book, Sweetness at the Bottom of the Pie,  and tell me what you think. Bradley goes into the mind of a genius 11-year-old girl, Flavia (rhymes with “gravy-a”, and she insists that you pronounce it correctly), in post-World War 2 Britain. She is funny, terribly clever, dreams of concocting poisons in the chemistry lab on her estate, and solves crimes.

Here are some brilliant uses of the language that continue to endear Flavia to me:

  • “I could see at a glance that sunlight was not welcome here.” Bradley could have said simply, “This was a gloomy room.” No, he wanted to use this room to create a setting for his reader.
  • “I raised an eyebrow at Dogger, who had told me that the word [‘momentarily’] meant ‘briefly’ rather than ‘soon,’ and was best avoided if one didn’t want to be mistaken for an American. But Dogger was wearing his unreadable poker face, and I was left to feel superior all by myself.” Flavia is smart and knows it. And she’s a bit disdainful about Americans. But notice how Bradley’s words don’t insult Americans outright; they are a soft nudge, tongue-in-cheek. Besides, Bradley himself is Canadian, so he doesn’t get it right every time either.
  • “When I woke up, the shadows of late afternoon had subtly rearranged my room.” Could Bradley have just said “When I awoke, I noticed that the sun was going down”? Sure, but his choice is much more evocative.
  • “The conversation was becoming like one of those absurd French dramas in which the characters stand about swapping nonsense dialogue while the audience pretend they know what’s going on.” I am certain Bradley meant Waiting for Godot. The icy, vague shadow of a nightmare rises up, along with memories of a sadistic professor who tried to convince us that it was a brilliant work of art. Bradley transported me back to a decade of frustrated reading (that was probably actually only a week long, but I can never get that time back), trying to discern any deep meaning in that play. It’s not worth your time, folks.

The third Canon of Rhetoric, Style, puts the icing on the cake, the jewels on the crown, the gold filigree on the tapestry… You see what I mean. And the more you pay attention to excellent writing, the more ways you will arrive at beautiful, compelling Style to prove your point and convince your audience.

Leave a comment

Filed under Education, Grammar, Literature, Rhetoric, Uncategorized

February 16, 2018 · 11:25 pm

Rhetoric: Not as Negative as You Might Think

angry politicianGetting to know a new dental hygienist, she asked about my career. I told her I’ve retired from teaching, among other things, Rhetoric. “Rhetoric?” she paused. “What is that, anyway?” That’s the question I get a lot. I opened my mouth to answer, and couldn’t get the words out for the dental torture devices she shoved in my mouth.

So what is Rhetoric, anyway? Isn’t it just a lot of negative political double-talk? I get a lot of puzzled looks from people who have only heard Rhetoric referred to in a negative light–especially in our politically-charged atmosphere today.

Way back when Aristotle (384-322 BC) was writing and postulating on the nature of the world, he observed how people tried to persuade one another. He didn’t invent the art of persuasion; he observed and organized the concept and gave it a name: Rhetoric.

Aristotle’s lifelong pursuit seems to have been organizing, categorizing, labeling,  commenting upon, and teaching different aspects of the world as he knew it.  Scholars assembled his body of works, known as the Corpus Aristotelicum. Most scholars today dispute the inclusion of quite a few lesser works and argue that what is contained in the Corpus may actually be written in the style of Aristotle by students in his schools. Much of the Corpus, though, is indisputably his, and is classified in five categories: Logic; Metaphysics; Physics; Ethics and Politics; and Rhetoric and Poetics.

It doesn’t take long to realize that we are all engineered to argue; spend one day with a three-year-old or a middle school student and see what I mean.  Aristotle, far from wanting to encourage a child to argue, instead directs the more mature student “to discern the real and the apparent means of persuasion” (Aristotle, Rhetoric Book 1).

In the classical tradition, the student of Rhetoric will have had an education in Logic, which sets a solid foundation on which to build his persuasive discourse. Aristotle’s thoughts on Logic confirm that fact: Aristotelian logic centers on the syllogism, which is (in very simple terms) an argument composed of two premises and a conclusion.

How do we get from Aristotle’s Logic to the definition of Rhetoric? If we, like him, consider it in terms of a scientific approach, then Rhetoric is the science of persuasion. He breaks down persuasive discourse in order to analyze it.

Similarly, our course of Rhetoric today does break down the component parts of Rhetoric in order to analyze its effectiveness. And the study of it, as detailed in Biblical Worldview Rhetoric (Second Edition coming soon), also explores and imitates the artful side of Rhetoric. We’ll look at the art of persuasion in another post.

But going back to one of our original questions: isn’t Rhetoric just a lot of negativity? It can be, most definitely. Sometimes it accuses, other times it defends, and very often it celebrates or remembers. For every angry, accusatory political discourse, I can show you several poignant, uplifting, inspirational ones. Rhetoric doesn’t have to be negative; it must always be persuasive.

Leave a comment

Filed under Biblical Worldview, Classical Education, Rhetoric, Uncategorized

November 16, 2017 · 11:48 pm

Biblical Worldview Rhetoric: What’s worldview?

Second Edition coming soon!

Why is this book called Biblical Worldview Rhetoric?

An essential aspect of our upcoming rhetoric text is a study of worldview. This text guides students through an examination of the worldviews behind discourses (speeches, essays, letters, etc.) and their authors. Worldview is inextricable from rhetoric, for every person speaks from his worldview, even unconsciously. Once you begin to think in this manner, you will have a much more rich understanding of the use of rhetoric.

Think of “worldview” as  the glasses through which we see the world – how we interpret and give context to what we see. Everyone has a worldview, and every worldview is based on the philosophies to which we adhere.

A Biblical Worldview begins with the foundation – the understanding and the acknowledgment – that God is the author and creator of all things:

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation. For by him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. And he is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church. He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in everything he might be preeminent. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. And you, who once were alienated and hostile in mind, doing evil deeds, he has now reconciled in his body of flesh by his death, in order to present you holy and blameless and above reproach before him, if indeed you continue in the faith, stable and steadfast, not shifting from the hope of the gospel that you heard, which has been proclaimed in all creation under heaven, and of which I, Paul, became a minister. (ESV, Colossians 1.15-23)

Teaching with a biblical worldview does not just mean attaching a Bible verse to the week’s lesson. It begins with the presupposition from Colossians, above. If God is the creator of all, and He holds all things together, does that affect the way we study the history, the people, the events? What drives people to do what they do? How do we react to the things that happen to us? How do we speak to and persuade one another? As we study, we take note of what sin does to the human mind, and how it drives people to act and react.

This kind of study means thinking presuppositionally: examining underlying ideas. Everyone has a worldview, has presuppositions with which they think and act, whether or not they are consciously aware of those ideas. When we seek to persuade a person, we also must identify and address (perhaps confront) his set of presuppositions, his worldview. This kind of study will inform how best to address someone whose ideas differ from ours.

We must study to approach our neighbors – our audience – armed with the truth. And we must know the worldviews by which they operate.

Ultimately, the goal of Biblical Worldview Rhetoric is to bring people to the Lord, but it’s not as simple as passing out tracts and reciting scripture at them. We must delve below the surface in order to get to the root of the problem, and as Dr. Michael Bauman of Hillsdale College says, “the problem of the human heart is at the heart of the human problem.” We know that the answers to all of humanity’s deepest questions can be found in God’s holy Word, by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. In other words, know the source of inspiration – the God of all Creation – and know your audience and how to address them. Only then will we be able to engage with people on what ultimately matters most of all: the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Leave a comment

Filed under Biblical Worldview, Classical Education, Homeschooling, Rhetoric

August 28, 2017 · 2:12 am

Announcing Revised Edition of Biblical Worldview Rhetoric

Thoughts Clothed In Words (2)It took 15 years for the first edition of Biblical Worldview Rhetoric to become a reality, so announcing a revised edition is nearly completed, just 6 years after the first, should feel practically lightning-fast!

I’m thrilled to announce it, and I want to give you an idea of the changes to come.

  • Collaboration. Probably most exciting for me is my partnership with a talented writer and teacher: my son, Tyler Howat. Tyler has his Master’s in English Literature from the University of Dayton and has been teaching for several years in classical settings in the U.S., in an online school, and overseas. He has used this Rhetoric curriculum for a few years, and his contribution to the new edition has been exciting. I guess they say the nut doesn’t fall far from the tree (sorry, Tyler!), but this nut has far surpassed me! (That makes me a nut also!)
  • Multimedia Assignments. Today’s rhetoric has never been just words on paper. Rhetoric is also speeches, advertisement, propaganda, and other forms of media. Today’s students, then, need to pay attention to how someone tries to persuade them in whatever media they use–in politics, on TV and movies, and social media. So wherever possible we have added some thoughtful teacher-directed discussions and assignments incorporating different forms of media.
  • Rhetoric 1 & 2 Combined. The first edition of Biblical Worldview Rhetoric came in two volumes. However, not every schooling situation is the same, so we combined it into one volume. That way a teacher or homeschool parent could decide how to lay out the course to meet their curricular requirements.
  • New Discourse Book. The first editions also included the discourses we used during the two years of Rhetoric. This time, since we’ve combined the two years, we decided to put all the discourses together in one volume. This collection, tentatively titled Thoughts Clothed in Words (a little homage to Shaunna’s favorite rhetorician, Hugh Blair), will also include some additional discussion questions at the end of most discourses, just to take the study a little further.
  • New Teacher Edition. Accompanying Biblical Worldview Rhetoric will be an option to purchase a teacher version for use in traditional schools or home schools. This volume will include assignment answers, quizzes, tests, and worksheets, and extra notes for classroom discussion.
  • Sample One- and Two-Year Layout for teachers and home schoolers (in the teacher edition). If you have questions on how to fit it all into one or two years, this will be quite handy.
  • Links to Discourses We Can’t Publish. Wherever possible, we used discourses in public domain in order to keep costs down. But we have favorites that we just can’t let go, so we will include links for students to find some of our favorite discourses online. (What are our favorites? You’ll have to wait and see!)
  • Thesis Project. Almost all classical schools assign a major Thesis project–if not just for 12th grade, perhaps even in 11th grade as well. These are considered the capstones of the high school career. This is not just a research paper; it is a biblical worldview project with a relevant thesis that takes up to a year from beginning (research and planning, finding an outside mentor) to end (rewriting, oral defense). We have added a more detailed unit on the Thesis.
  • What else? Part of our plan was to launch a new E-Book feature with live links to discourses and visual Rhetoric. That is still in the works; we wanted to get this edition into your hands sooner. So stay tuned!
  • When? We are on schedule to have this ready to purchase for the 2018-2019 school year, so hopefully by early spring. If you have specific questions about the timetable, please contact Shaunna or Tyler.

1 Comment

Filed under Biblical Worldview, Classical Education, Education, Homeschooling, Rhetoric