Category Archives: Rhetoric

Descriptions of Rhetoric, discussions of its use today.

June 28, 2011 · 1:27 pm

God wins

Rob Bell’s book Love Wins has drawn much attention in the Christian church today. I wasn’t too interested in reading it until my youngest son returned from college and told me his theology class had read it–not to use it as theology, but to compare Bell’s claims to orthodox theology. His class also evaluated it in light of today’s church, in which error, misstatement, and outright heresy slip in, even into some mainstream churches.

While I read Love Wins, I couldn’t help but underline and take notes, because he makes some pretty amazing claims about God that I just cannot find in scripture.

I teach my students that the standard of measurement regarding what we know about God, about the universe, about man, and about truth, is the Bible, God’s word. New claims that redefine any of these are just plain heresy, because they depart from that absolute measurement of God’s word. So from that perspective, I can tell you a few things that shouted at me from Bell’s book. If you do not agree with my presupposition, you can stop reading here.

In his preface, Bell says, “Jesus responds to almost every question he’s asked with…a question. ‘What do you think? How do you read it?’ he asks, again and again and again” (ix-x). Really? Does Jesus ask us what we think about things? Or does he say “You’ve heard it said…but I say…”? (See Matthew 5 for several examples.) My opinion has nothing to do with whether what God says is valid or true or right or applicable. Does he really believe Jesus, Son of God, took a popularity poll?

Chapter One is full of questions about what saves you. He lists one thing after another that people have said, and that the Bible has said, and these just raise more questions. His faulty logic leads his reader to believe that Christians sit around waiting for the life hereafter, not doing anything because they’re waiting:

So is it true that the kind of person you are doesn’t ultimately matter, as long as you’ve said or prayed or believed the right things? If you truly believed that, and you were surrounded by Christians who believed that, then you wouldn’t have much motivation to do anything about the present suffering of the world, because you would believe you were going to leave someday and go somewhere else to be with Jesus. (6, emphasis his)

This kind of logical fallacy is intentionally planted to convince his readers that Christians only care about the life hereafter and not at all about their fellow man today. He continues his discussion, ignoring the fact of the fruits of the Christian faith, exhibited all over the world, throughout history. He does, however, take time to mention a story about a group of Christians who rounded up some Muslims and shot them. So what is his point?

Bell spends a chapter on heaven. He wants his reader to know that heaven will be a future period of time on earth when everything is made perfect. We can participate with God in preparing for this future heaven on earth by what we do now. If we work to bring clean water to a place with no drinkable water, we are “participating now in the life of the age to come” (45). He has spent a chapter telling us that “the age to come” is when God says “enough!” and this earth becomes a perfect place for everyone.

Heaven may not be eternal as we think of it, he says, because the Bible doesn’t describe eternity in terms of forever, time without end. So what is it?

Bell cannot connect the idea of a completely good God with a God who allows people to be tormented in hell forever, and he spends a chapter on that. This, I believe, is his main point. He creates a picture of a god who doesn’t really mean what he says.

Bell confuses the topic of hell, which is no surprise after he confuses us about heaven. Hell is not a real place, he insists. It is what we make it, here and now. Eventually, God will restore all things to all people. He lists, out of context, verse after verse from the Bible regarding God’s promise to restore Israel, and uses those verses to show that a time of chastisement will not be forever.

Hell gets a comedic stereotype: “I have a hard time believing that somewhere down below the earth’s crust is a really crafty figure in red tights holding a three-pointed spear, playing Pink Floyd records backward, and enjoying the hidden messages” (70). Treated in such a fashion (not just here but several times), he encourages his audience to laugh along with him about the unbelievability of hell as a literal place at all.

Bell admits we all have a choice–to say yes or no to God. But he refuses to tell us the consequences of saying no, because he does not believe in a literal hell (177).

His main point in the chapter about hell is that yes, we all will answer for our wrongdoings, but that God will eventually restore everyone. We Christians create an exclusive “we” and “them” wrongly, about what happens to non-Christians, he says. We will all end up in the same place, praising God together, he says. Here he leads his audience into what follows, which is his universalist theology: all paths lead to the same place.

After denying hell, he then denies and decries the exclusivity of Christianity: “Muslims, Buddhists, and Baptists from Cleveland” all will be saved. You know, this is true–IF they have named the name of Jesus as their savior.

Here is the point of his book, I believe: “given enough time, everybody will turn to God and find themselves in the joy and peace of God’s presence. The love of God will melt every hard heart, and even the most ‘depraved sinners’ will eventually give up their resistance and turn to God” (107). In other words, what God has said in scripture isn’t really what God meant, and Rob Bell will redefine it for us.

Bell doesn’t like that we only get this present life in which to choose to follow Jesus, because it does not fit with a completely loving God. (He chooses to believe in a completely loving God while ignoring the truth about God’s justice. It’s both/and, rather than either/or.)

We will get what we want in the end, Bell says, because God loves us, and love wins. If we want everlasting peace, we’ll get it. And we don’t need to get that everlasting peace just through Jesus. Because all religions present that same truth, he says; it’s only Christians who say that Christians are the only ones saved. However, we are told, in the Bible that he quotes, that the only way to the Father is through the Son, Jesus Christ (John 14:6). He is the gate to that heaven Bell describes. If Jesus is the only way to the Father, then that means there are paths that do not lead to the Father–and those paths are the ones that claim other paths to heaven!

A pastor in Michigan wrote an excellent commentary refuting Bell’s claims, and I highly recommend it. Here’s an excerpt:

What’s wrong with this theology is, of course, what’s wrong with the whole book. Bell assumes all sorts of things that can’t be shown from Scripture. For example, Bell figures God won’t say “sorry, too late” to those in hell who are humble and broken for their sins. But where does the Bible teach the damned are truly humble or penitent? For that matter, where does the Bible talk about growing and maturing in the afterlife or getting a second chance after death? Why does the Bible make such a big deal about repenting “today” (Heb. 3:13), about being found blameless on the day of Christ (2 Pet. 3:14), about not neglecting such a great salvation (Heb. 2:3) if we have all sorts of time to figure things out in the next life? Why warn about not inheriting the kingdom (1 Cor. 6:9–10), about what a fearful thing it is to fall into the hands of the living God (Heb. 10:31), or about the vengeance of our coming King (2 Thess. 1:5–12) if hell is just what we make of heaven? Bell does nothing to answer these questions, or even ask them in the first place. (Kevin DeYoung, thegospelcoalition.org)

To appeal to his audience Bell refers to social justice issues, as if non-Christians and his parishioners have the exclusive claim to caring about them. Again, he ignores the fact that Christians have been in the forefront, for centuries, in caring for the poor, for justice, and for peace.

He uses nice-sounding phrases that appeal to people who have grown up into postmodern thinking: “We shape our God, and then our God shapes us” (184). What is that even supposed to mean, and how is it supported in scripture? “Our beliefs matter now, for us, and they matter then, for us. They matter for others, now, and they matter for others, then” (184). Nice-sounding but empty. If all people eventually go to heaven, why should beliefs matter?

Bell sets up many straw-men and other logical fallacies that destroy his credibility. He demeans his audience by talking down to them. To his credit, he appears to genuinely care for the broken and hurting folks of this world, but he simply yanks any semblance of a foundation out from under them by plying them with nice-sounding platitudes that, when held up to the light, are empty and meaningless.

The real story is that God is fully love and fully just. His nature is such that he cannot look on sin, and that sin demands payment. Jesus paid that debt by dying on the cross and rising again to life. Those who believe in him will have everlasting life.

In the end, God wins.

2 Comments

Filed under Biblical Worldview, Logical Fallacies

April 16, 2011 · 2:29 pm

More Errors in Reasoning

The fallacies of Composition and Division are funny things. Just when you think you have them figured out, they sneak up on you again, and you find you’re committing one of them.

Composition is the fallacy of assuming that what is true of the parts must be true of the whole. James Nance, author of Introductory Logic (Canon Press), cites a great example for composition: “if chlorine is a poison, and it is, and sodium is a poison, and it is, then if we combine them (NaCl), the result should be twice as poisonous, right? Wrong. We are talking about table salt.” What is true about the parts is not true about the whole.

Division, on the other hand, is the opposite of composition. This fallacy assumes that what is true of the whole must then be true of the individual parts. For example, this glass of soda is red, therefore all the atoms that make up this soda must also be red.

It is frustrating to be a member of a group and have someone peg each individual in that group a certain way, when they are by definition diverse, and should always be. For example, usually around the time of a heated political campaign, someone from a women’s organization will speak up on behalf of all women. I happen to be a member of that people group, and I object to being represented collectively by someone with whom I have a large idealogical difference.

The argument about whether to de-fund Planned Parenthood has become the favorite object of women’s groups, who have begun to shrilly cry that anyone who votes to take away that organization’s funding is against women, and specifically against women’s health.

Please, stop saying you represent me. You don’t represent the entire group of people who are female. You actually represent a small subset of that group; you do not speak for me. Stop implying that you do. I have never used, needed, nor wanted Planned Parenthood. I drive by one most days, and I shudder to know that within those walls young women are duped into believing that for a little inconvenience and a sum of money, they can wash their pregnancy down the drain, troubles all gone. Planned Parenthood is not about women’s health; it is about abortions.

When one or two women step up to the microphone and say they represent all women, they assume that because we are women we all think and feel the same way they do. Not so, and I wish you would stop trying. You do not represent me, my wishes, my priorities, my morals.

I see a similar fallacy arising in the modern Christian church, and I’m trying to figure out whether it is composition or division. Maybe you can help me.

It should be true (and I can show you where in the Bible!) that all Christians believe the Word of God, the Bible, to be infallible, inerrant, and the source of absolute truth.

It should also be true that all Christians (and I can show you where in the Bible!) believe in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and that his work on the cross paid the penalty for sin, for those who will believe and profess him to be their Lord and Savior.

It should be true that all Christians carry those beliefs. Now, however, you can find all sorts of people who call themselves Christians who will pick and choose which of those they want to believe. And they still call themselves Christians!

For some, for example, the Bible is not completely inerrant. In other words, some folks will tell you they believe the Bible is the Word of God, but that Genesis is only a fable. If you can choose for yourself what parts of the Bible are true, haven’t you made yourself the authority instead of God?

For another example, the Emergent Church movement has begun to work at eroding the very foundation of the Christian church–and still calls itself Christian. By questioning the atoning work of Jesus Christ on the cross, or by questioning whether there really is an eternal hell, or by completely eliminating the topic of sin from its messages, it preaches a brand new kind of religion under the guise of Christianity.

So while I read my Bible, the source of truth for the Christian church, I should be able to believe that what is true of the whole Christian church should be true of its individual members. Instead, we see that wolves in sheep’s clothing have entered the fold and have begun to redefine Christianity right under our noses, changing what has been true about the fundamentals of this faith for centuries.

Are we talking about a whole new fallacy now? Or do we just call this heresy?

1 Comment

Filed under Biblical Worldview, Logical Fallacies, Rhetoric

December 26, 2010 · 10:19 pm

Great books

View DetailsI’ll follow the year-end traditionof many bloggers and writers and list some books that have changed my life. Some I read this year, some I have re-read, and others I want to pick up again just because.

Christian Reading to add perspective:

Christless Christianity by Michael Horton. I’ve been a Christian most of my life and belonged to many different denominations. We’ve lived in several states, attended numerous churches, and suffered again and again through the whole “church-shopping” experience. As we age, we believe we’re getting closer to narrowing down what we seek in a church. Some I just won’t go back to again, because I have this knee-jerk reaction to legalism. Other versions of Christianity that make my knees jerk–on the way to running in the other direction–would include soft-selling the gospel in the effort to be “seeker-sensitive” or “relevant.” My husband and I seek a good balance of law and gospel, mercy and justice in a church. That’s why this year’s most stunning read, for me, is Christless Christianity.
(Please understand that I am not pointing fingers at any particular church that I have attended. However, of all the reading I do, and the ideas I encounter as I read and research, I am disheartened by what I see in the Christian world.) Some quotes from the book:

It is easy to become distracted from Christ as the only hope for sinners. Where everything is measured by our happiness rather than by God’s holiness, the sense of our being sinners becomes secondary, if not offensive.

While the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church, the assimilation of the church to the world silences the witness.

The focus still seems to be on us and our activity rather than on God and his work in Jesus Christ.

If we are merely wayward, we only need direction; merely sick, we need medicine; merely weak, we need strength. Radical grace, on the other hand, answers to radical sinfulness–not simply to moral mistakes, lack of zeal, or spiritual lethargy, but to the condition that the Bible defines as nothing less than condemned, “children of wrath,” “dead in trespasses and sins” (Ephesians 2:1, 3).

If the central message of Christianity were how to have your best life now or become a better you, then rather than heralds we would need life coaches, spiritual directors, and motivational speakers. Good advice requires a person with a plan; Good News requires a person with a message. This is not to say that we do not also need good advice or plans but that the source of the church’s existence and mission in this world is this announcement of God’s victory in Jesus Christ.

 This book does not present new ways of “doing church”; it reminds me of the truth of the Word of God, and plants in me the desire to pursue God’s truth alone. Emergent Church leaders preach that the Bible is not enough; there must be more. I was reminded this year, in reading this book, that Christ alone, through faith alone, as revealed in scripture alone, is sufficient. I am so grateful to be pointed back again to scripture and its truth.

New Fiction Series:

Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins.  This series is labeled mostly for young adults, but I read it on the recommendation of my son, who keeps me apprised of what’s good to read. (I mostly stick with old classics.) This series presents the reader with a dystopian society: a bleak future world in which a repressed people live under a dictatorship. Every year two teenagers from each district are brought together to fight to the death. The reward: a year of more food allotments for the victor’s district. Katniss is the young girl picked for this year’s Hunger Games. The reader follows Katniss through the Hunger Games and afterward, in Catching Fire and Mockingjay, the second and third books. I found them easy, exciting, and riveting. The characters are engaging, and the fantasy aspect worked well.

Old Fiction Series



The Chronicles of Narnia by C. S. Lewis.  In preparation for the new Narnia movie release this winter, I re-read the series. As always, I am drawn into the world of Narnia and its delightful characters, masterfully presented by Lewis. My first read-through was in junior high. Its characters came alive in me then, and they continue to delight even now. I am eager to see the entire series made into the high-quality movies I’ve seen so far. (While the movie lines do stray a bit from the books, I try not to set my hopes too high.) My favorite has to be The Magician’s Nephew, mostly because the depiction of Narnia’s creation (Aslan sings Narnia into existence!) is breath-takingly beautiful.

Classic re-read

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. I read this book in college and listed it as one of my top ten favorites (although if I were pinned down to my top ten books, we might actually find them to total in the dozens). Rand’s philosophy is completely hostile to Christianity. As long as I know that, going in to a novel, I can look for whatever else the author does with her subject. Rand tells an amazing story here, a sort of dystopia, in which socialism takes over by slow erosion. The book opens with an intriguing question, asked again and again through the novel: “Who is John Galt?” Almost a rhetorical shrugging of the shoulders, this question becomes a “Who cares?” kind of slough-off. This very long novel builds in frustration and intensity to a climax no one could expect. My re-read this year left me completely satisfied but also shocked at how closely our society is beginning to resemble Rand’s dark and gloomy dystopia.

Classic New Reads (for me).

Dracula by Bram Stoker. Though I have been told many times that this was a must-read, I resisted because I really dislike evil, vampire-type novels. However, once I picked up this novel I was hooked. One might say I was mesmerized by the hypnotic, freaky vampire creature. Stoker clearly paints evil as horrid. He shows the reader that faith in God saves–not only after death but also during life on this earth. Stoker’s novel was the first in a long, never-ending line of vampire stories, which I promise I will never pick up and read (or watch on film). However, this gothic, genre-setting novel was masterfully written and perfectly produced.

The Brothers Karamozov by Fyodor Dostoyevsky. A student of mine told me how much she loved this novel, and she wrote her senior thesis on the author’s Christian worldview. Again and again I heard from others how great this book is. So I decided to pick it up and examine it for myself. This was beautifully written, with long and tangled strands of story-lines I often found difficult to unravel. He paints the beautiful as such and depicts human nature realistically. He shows how depraved man is without God, and how man cries out for a savior and heavenly Father. This is a lovely, compelling, devastating book.

Reading List for the coming year.

This year, if I have the time, I will re-read the Lord of the Rings series, beginning with The Hobbit. I haven’t read these since high school. My husband gave me the entire Harry Potter series for Christmas. Since I devoured all seven books in two weeks a few years ago (borrowed from my children), I am certain I could use a good re-read. However, I’m disappointed that those books are not downloadable on my Kindle! (I love carrying the Kindle on the plane or a long car ride!) I also added the World War 1 and World War 2 series of books to my Kindle, by Jeff Shaara, my favorite historical fiction author. Those books I have not yet read, though I have loved all his others. A good friend just gave me a book called Law and Gospel: How to Read and Apply the Bible, by CFW Walther. From what my friend tells me, this will be next year’s Christless Christianity for me, filled with gems of inspiration and truth. I’m sure you’ll see some of those gems played out in this blog.

I look at my list and see how eclectic a reader I am. I like that! Don’t ever accuse me of being stuck as a reader. If you want to see my recommended list of reading, gleaned over many years of book addiction, email me. I’ll be happy to share it with you.

Leave a comment

Filed under Rhetoric

December 14, 2010 · 2:17 pm

A, not non-A

 When two college kids in a coffee shop begin discussing philosophy, you know it’s going to be a long night. I remember doing this, but it wasn’t over coffee; our conversations always took place over pizza at 2 am. Everything is fair game to amateur philosophers, and one simple question could take them down long, winding, scary-looking roads. One thing you might want to see them do is set up ground rules for their discussion. However, today, the likelihood of  postmodernists setting up rules for discussion is pretty distant. Postmodernists are absolutely certain that there are no absolutes.

Our postmodern debaters might instead toss logic aside for the purpose of wide-ranging debate. They evade moral boundaries with “that’s your truth, not mine.” Comfortable with opposing presuppositions, the two decide that what’s true for one may not be true for the other, but that’s okay.

What they don’t realize, while coffee cools and conversation continues, is by setting aside basic truth, they have lost the means by which to build a real discussion. What follows is nonsense. Essentially, they’ve washed away the very foundations of logic in pursuit of erudite, meaningless philosophical dialogue.

Considered the father of logic, Aristotle recorded what he observed in the world. He is renowned for his laws of thought, one of which is called the Law of Non-Contradiction. This law seems so simple, yet its application threatens postmodern thought. Thus the reason that many teachers and scholars today depart from (or ignore) Logic: the Law of Non-Contradiction is an inconvenient truth that wreaks havoc on their pseudo-intellectual debate.

This law states that a thing cannot be both true and false at the same time. In other words, something cannot be both A and non-A. That seems like a no-brainer. However, most likely our postmodern coffee-house debaters have abandoned this basic law of thought. “What’s true for you may not be true for me” cannot exist as a basic truth in light of Aristotle’s law, because two conflicting or contradictory statements cannot both be true.

Take for example something a blogger recently posted. He made a seemingly innocuous statement about religions: “True religions encourage good behavior.” (I won’t copy the entire sentence, because what follows that statement is a fallacy I may choose to take apart another time.)

Let’s unravel the phrase “true religions.” That in itself is a contradiction. Every religion claims to be a true religion. (Honestly, why would you not claim to follow a true religion? Put it another way: why would you follow a religion you knew to be false?)

Most religions claim that their god is the one true god (or, in some cases, the many gods who reign and rule). If they don’t hold to a deity, they do follow certain paths to holiness or heavenly existence. So if religion A claims its god is the one true god, and religion B makes the same claim, each religion has just vowed the same, yet conflicting, statement.

By saying “mine is the one true god,” you have implied that all other gods are not-true. If that is so, you cannot say that religion B’s god is also true without abandoning logic. Thus only one religion’s truth claim can be true, according to the Law of Non-Contradiction.

Go ahead and try to believe that all truth claims—even contrasting ones—are valid. Believe that your coffee is both cold and not-cold. Just realize that you have kicked the foundation out from under your discussion, and it’s going nowhere.

4 Comments

Filed under Biblical Worldview, Logical Fallacies, Rhetoric

December 4, 2010 · 5:39 pm

Cartoon nonsense: non sequitur begs a question

Pooh and Piglet
Pooh and Piglet

 As fallacies go, non sequiturs are pretty well-known. This fallacy, which literally means “does not follow,” leaps from the premise to the conclusion without any substantiation. Thus we draw a conclusion that does not follow from the above premises.

One popular logic textbook by James Nance and Douglas Wilson offers the following example: “God is love. Love is blind. Ray Charles is blind. Therefore, Ray Charles is God.” Though perhaps the form of the syllogism looks valid, the conclusion cannot be drawn from these premises.

Here’s a real-life example that just came across my computer screen late last night, and it has me twitching.

This weekend on the popular social network FaceBook, members encourage one another to replace their profile picture with a picture of their favorite cartoon character. Here’s what members tell one another: “Change your profile picture to a cartoon character from your childhood and invite your friends to do the same. Until Monday (Dec 6) there should be no human faces on FaceBook, but an invasion of memories. This is a campaign to stop violence against children.”

Not only is this a non sequitur, it also evinces a fallacy called “Begging the Question,” or petitio principii. Putting a cartoon character in my FaceBook profile picture, joining the masses who currently follow suit, will stop violence against children? Another faulty logical maneuver is implication: by NOT changing my profile picture to a cartoon character, I have (gasp!) said I condone violence against children.

Grumpy Bear, such a downer

Grumpy Bear, such a downer

While you make faces and accuse me, like Grumpy Bear, of popping that wonderful little red balloon Love Bear holds in his sweet, fuzzy paw, I will challenge you to think carefully how lemmings on a social website will end violence against children by changing their profile picture. It makes me wonder whether I could begin a new campaign to bring the moon closer to earth if we change our profile picture to our favorite snack food. It does not follow!

Remember those chain mail letters you got when you were younger (back before email took over and we were inundated with similar missives promising $50,000 to everyone who added their name to the email and sent it on)? If we just sent out ten letters to friends, then we’d receive some sort of promised benefit. If we broke the chain, bad luck would soon follow.

Even as a child, I knew that was a bunch of hot air and waste of good money on stamps. It was superstitious nonsense. Yet here we are, on the internet, still purveying the same kind of silliness. There’s nothing new under the sun.

It simply does not follow. No social change will come about from posting a picture of my favorite character, not even if 350,000 of my closest friends do the same. “But,” someone argued when a friend bravely pointed out the façade, “we need to consider those less fortunate than ourselves and do something! Raising awareness of an important issue prompts some people to take action. Some may adopt a better parenting style. Others may support an organization that supports kids in distress.”

Really? From changing your profile picture, this will come about? My friend defined the real meat of this fallacy:

What will REALLY help __________? (Insert whatever cause you want to ‘raise awareness’ of.) Is it a color of ribbon that I wear? or changing a picture on a public forum? Those things smack of blowing my own horn for my self-righteousness — to my glory, not to God’s. I need to speak the Law (to convict people of sin) and the Gospel (to tell of Christ’s atoning work on the cross to pay for and forgive sin). That is the ONLY thing that will not only change people’s bad behavior, but give eternal hope and peace with God to both the abused and the abuser.

I agree that there are actions to be taken, love to show, money to be raised, but in the end (and I mean THE END), the One who will help/love/provide/change this world won’t be me.

Truly, what brings about social change? Not some action of my own devising, but the saving act of Jesus Christ. Not some new program by government or in my community or in my church, but the Gospel. It is my great joy in the knowledge of my salvation—unearned through no act of mine but solely through the grace of God—that compels me to step outside and help others, carrying out the Great Commission.

One more thought comes to mind, about acts done publicly “to make our world a better place,” like stopping violence against children. Such boasting is a form of self-righteousness. Matthew 6:1-4 reads, 

Take heed that you do not do your charitable deeds before men, to be seen by them. Otherwise you have no reward from your Father in heaven. Therefore, when you do a charitable deed, do not sound a trumpet before you as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may have glory from men. Assuredly, I say to you, they have their reward. But when you do a charitable deed, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, that your charitable deed may be in secret; and your Father who sees in secret will Himself reward you openly.

Lest you argue that I’ve gone off the deep end in searching for such profound meaning in a cartoon character, I will remind you that following a trend such as this is just that: a trend, not a promise to end world hunger or AIDS or violence against children. It has no meaning; it is mere symbol.

 Change your FaceBook profile picture—go ahead! Just don’t try to tell yourself your act is doing anything but making people smile when they associate a cartoon character with your name. It just does not follow that this will cause great social change in this world—don’t fool yourself.

Here’s an interesting commentary on the above passage from Matthew 6: http://www.pbministries.org/books/pink/Sermon/sermon_22.htm

2 Comments

Filed under Biblical Worldview, Logical Fallacies, Uncategorized

August 16, 2010 · 2:54 am

Announcing: Rhetoric text book

As of August 15, 2010, Biblical Worldview Rhetoric I and Biblical Worldview Rhetoric II are available for purchase. This is the study of Classical Rhetoric for Christian home schooled and private schooled students. I’ve been writing it for fifteen years; it’s time to finally give birth to this baby!

You can find the book at Amazon.com by the first of September. Until then, you can purchase it at the publisher, CreateSpace. Rhetoric I is available at www.createspace.com/3454405. Rhetoric II is at www.createspace.com/3454406.

If you purchase the student version of the text book (addresses above), you can obtain the teacher text from me for $10. I will send you a pdf file of the teacher text, which also includes a sample syllabus for home schooled students, payable via Pay Pal. Please contact me via my email address at howat.sk@gmail.com and send me your purchase number from Create Space or Amazon.

1 Comment

Filed under Biblical Worldview, Rhetoric

July 12, 2010 · 2:41 pm

Thinking in an orderly manner

The professor in C.S. Lewis’ delightful book The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe sighed in frustration: “Logic! Why don’t they teach logic at these schools?” One might wonder the same thing today. Learning how to think and reason seems to be a lost art.

I had an exchange with a parent recently, who is studying the logic curriculum I require my Rhetoric students to take. She decided to go through it with her son, and she found herself stumped at times. She asked, “Could a person win at a debate only because they follow the correct process, even if the concluding statement is something like: Therefore, no cows are animals?”

When I learned logic as a formal class, I was in my early 30s. I thought I might die, because I am an English person, not a math person, and this seemed too math-like for me. But then I began to enjoy the way words fit together to make sense, and I began to see how this could order my thinking as I taught Apologetics and Rhetoric. 

Could a person win a debate with a nonsense statement? No; he could conclude that the argument was in correct logical form, but he could not win a debate with nonsense.

We might try telling a few of our political leaders the same thing these days. A lot of nonsense is coming out of Washington, and many folks not only nod and smile at it; they believe it as truth. THIS (preaches the Rhetoric teacher) is why we need to learn logic AND rhetoric! (Hmmm…I feel another blog coming on…)

Logic is not just a study of how to argue correctly. Logic helps a person to order his thoughts, to recognize fallacy, and to improve his own methods of thinking. We might be less likely to follow unscrupulous methods of argumentation if we adhere to pure logic.

Rhetoric not only teaches a student how to become more eloquent in his writing; it teaches how to discern. A discerning student should be able to tell  when he is being manipulated by the people around him, whether it is a politician, a professor, or a pastor. Yes, you might be shocked–some people who purport to represent the Gospel actually represent their own interpretation, or twisting, of God’s word. How will we know unless we learn how to discern truth from error? (I digress; that’s the subject of other blogs.)

When studying Rhetoric, a student will learn to peel back the layers of another person’s argument to see what’s underneath. Perhaps it’s faulty logic. Maybe it’s emotional manipulation. It might actually be truth, presented well. But unless he has studied logic and struggled through Rhetoric, working on improving his faculties of higher thinking, he might find himself following the whims of anyone who happens to have the podium (or the teleprompter) at the time.

The study of logic and rhetoric does not guarantee immediate good-thinking and sound reasoning. One could use those studies to improve his own methods of deceit and demagoguery. Again, though, how will we be able to recognize that twist unless we ourselves pursue, throughout all our lives, sound logic and reasoning?

Jesus tells his disciples in Matthew 10:16, “Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves” (NASB). Shrewdness comes when we have studied the world around us and can discern truth from error. Staying innocent as doves, I might venture to offer, happens when we remain unstained by that world which we have studied. How do we do that? By abiding in God’s Word as we study, and by constant reminder that we are in this world, not of it (see Romans 12:2, Phil 2:15, Col 2:8).

Leave a comment

Filed under Biblical Worldview, Rhetoric

June 30, 2010 · 1:48 pm

Kiss the Blarney Stone? Why?

Blarney Castle near Cork, Ireland
Kissing the Blarney Stone

What happens when you kiss the Blarney Stone, according to Irish legend?

My husband and I recently visited Ireland and climbed to the top of Blarney Castle, near Cork. We saw folks emptying their pockets and removing their glasses and jewelry, lying down and scooching back, back, down, down, down, over three stories of empty space, to kiss the underside of a stone at the top of the castle. Why?
Legend has it that if you kiss the Blarney Stone, you become more eloquent.
Really? Is that all I have to do?
And here I’ve spent 15 years of my professional life researching and teaching Rhetoric to my students so that they could become more eloquent!
Rhetoric is the study of eloquence. How do people put words together to persuade their audiences? What makes them more persuasive than their peers? How did they persuade? We study the greats (and not-so-greats) in order to learn from them–what to do and what not to do. Then we become better writers and speakers ourselves.
So go to Ireland if you can. Kiss the Blarney Stone if you must. But that’s just cheating.

1 Comment

Filed under Rhetoric