Douglass: An escaped slave

This post is about Frederick Douglass, who lived from 1818-1895 and escaped from his owners in 1838.  Douglass gave his first speech against slavery in 1841 to a mixed crowd of whites and blacks.

The question posed by my professor for a mini essay was: “What were the primary rhetorical obstacles for African Americans when they worked alongside white abolitionists?”

Equal Rights?

            I found it ironic that the white abolitionists were all about rallying for the black race as long as the people they were rallying for didn’t get more attention than the white folks or take jobs the white folks wanted. That was pretty ignorant in my humble opinion, and I don’t mean ignorant as uninformed, I mean the other ignorant.

Douglass had a wife and five kids to support, but when it came down to him getting a job on the docks as a caulker; the white folks objected to him being hired. Now maybe this could slide by as the people he was completing with for a job might not have necessarily been white abolitionists, but once he began traveling with the Garrisonian abolitionists, I would have thought this racism would have ceased. I was wrong.

Douglass traveled all over speaking against slavery but apparently he was used more as a prop than a speaker. The white speakers wanted to do the talking and just parade Douglass out on stage to show the audience his scars from the vicious beatings he was given at the hands of his white owners. As if that wasn’t insulting enough, as Douglass developed his voice and made use of rhetorical tones, his white friends believed he was destroying his credibility as a slave. I suppose the more he sounded like the white folks, educated with no Southern draw, the less likely anyone would believe he had been a slave. They even doubted that he had in fact written his own speeches. If he hadn’t had the scars, would they have believed anything?

Fact: There are times that my own race disgusts me, historically and presently.

Don’t just preach it, Live it

The Rhetorical Appeals and Delivery in Reaching a Community of God’s People


            Nothing moves me quite like a good sermon. I want to become emotionally involved in what the preacher is saying and have the Bible verses stated so I can look them up while the sermon is being delivered. I expect the preacher to approach the sermon with logic and have it apply to my own life.  The words should roll off the preachers tongue with conviction and be genuine in the attempt to move my heart to save my soul. It is easier to accept my sinful nature when the preacher acknowledges his or her own sinfulness and asks God to be forgiven along with the rest of us. Preachers must create a community within their congregation that makes people feel welcome, regardless of their past. To understand the necessary appeals and the delivery that should be used to make this possible, we will delve into three journal articles that focus on the goals of preaching to God’s people.

First we will explore how the journal articles define God’s people. Charney stated that God’s people are those who have been abandoned (262) or are humiliated, deprived, and down cast (263). Charney also describes God’s people as the lowliest of individuals that are angry and traumatized (265). Souders describes God’s people as those who realize their natural, sinful human condition (324) while Manolescu quotes Campbell in describing them as “the inferior ranks of people” (162). What can be taken from all three journals is that God’s people are damaged goods. All humans are in dire need of a preacher to save them from themselves in order to one day ascend to Heaven rather than be delivered straight to Hell as an unsaved soul. The authors are straight-forward with the description of the human condition that casts all as unworthy sinners, but offers the opportunity for forgiveness.

Next are the rhetorical appeals and delivery style that preachers must use to properly persuade the damaged humans to everlasting life. Charney states the desire is to foster cohesiveness both socially and culturally within a congregation through the use of Psalms (264). The Psalms, either sung or spoken in verse, should be done as a public declaration, as well in private (248). The act of declaring ones faith in public will allow others the chance to humiliate the speaker, but holding back a declaration of praise or affirmation of faith would be a sin. Manolescu stated that Campbell believed an emotional appeal should be used to move a congregation (163, 165) in a gentle, persuasive manner rather than a zealous manner delivered in the grand style (165-66). An overly zealous delivery may be found offensive to a congregation and should be avoided so not to alienate or strike fear into the listeners. Rather a logical approach with reason and genuine passion will fulfill the rhetorical appeal. Souders is in agreement with Manolescu that the influence and beliefs of the preacher–the logos–should be delivered in the plain style (321) while using reason (332) and natural science (320) to help the congregation understand the meaning of the sermon. Also significant, Souders points out that Beecher stated it is the job of the preacher to develop true Christians by inspiring, nurturing, and guiding them to Divine Understanding (336). This truth will be achieved through being a “good man” as defined by Quintilian in that the preacher had better be practicing what he preaches. This, in my opinion, is the most difficult task of a preacher–to lead by example–as even preachers are sinners by nature.

Lastly, are the goals of a preacher as presented in the journal articles. In Charney’s article, the Psalms are an example of how people, preachers included, should sing the praises of God publicly (260) as a celebration of God’s sacrifice on human’s behalf. A pastor not only helps a congregation reaffirm their faith, but reaffirms their own in doing so. Manolescu writes that Campbell advocates the use of certain doctrines in order to promote the correctness of a congregation and to convert non-believers by a means of passion that is communicated from the speaker to the listeners to move their will (168, 174). Souders article on Beecher perhaps explains the goals of preaching the best. A preacher must relate the sermons to the lives of the congregation to be create a fundamental transformation of the listeners (318). Beecher disposed of the past methods of preaching to the elite, the educated, the obedient and those of authority (323) and instead taught all how to model their life after Christ allowing his congregation to feel loved and included. Beecher even went as far as to refuse to preach from the pulpit (324) in order to make his presence at the same level of his congregation. I personally have never witnessed such a thing but find that admirable that he wants people to see him as an equal instead of above those who are listening. Beecher strived for a fundamental transformation of his listeners based on truth through pathos, rather than the ethos of his learned knowledge. He wished to “make religion attractive by the goodness that men see in you” and took this approach to heart by focusing his sermons on the audience rather than the rules (325). In doing this Beecher’s objective was to “lift the lives of listeners from the mundane and normal, up to the divine” (327). This is what a congregation needs from their preacher, to feel inspired to release the stress of their daily lives by turning their troubles over to God. It is then that God is given control and the ability to relieve them of the problems that bring their lives down.

The three journal articles I analyzed all focused on the importance of a preacher in creating an inviting, warm atmosphere for their community. A preacher must realize that God’s people are not perfect and never will be, and in that, they must acknowledge their own sinfulness in order for their listeners to be accepting of their words. No one person is better than another and a congregation will turn away from a preacher who teaches otherwise. Emotional appeals are important to the listeners as they bridge a gap that may be otherwise be missing in a person’s life. Everyone, at some point, has felt humiliated or deprived, angry or depressed, so the importance of preaching and teaching to reach those people and saving their souls is the highest of all goals of a preacher because if they fail to do so, to save that person from their sinful nature, the preacher also fails in their commitment to save God’s people.

Works Cited

Charney, Davida H. “Performativity and Persuasion in the Hebrew Book of Psalms: A Rhetorical Analysis of Psalms 116 and 22.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly. June 2010: 247-268. Print.

Manolescu, Beth I. “Religious Reasons for Campbell’s View of Emotional Appeals in Philosophy   of Rhetoric.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly. Apr. 2007: 159-180. Print.

Souders, Michael. “Truthing it in Love”: Henry Ward Beecher’s Homiletic Theories of Truth,        Beauty, Love, and the Christian Faith.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly. Sept. 2011: 316-339.        Print.

Rhetoric in Christian Theology


Pattie Crider

WRT 305

Article Reviews

October 28, 2013


Perfomativity and Persuasion in the Hebrew Book of Psalms: A Rhetorical Analysis of Psalms 116 and 22

            This journal article focused on oral poetry as hymns of praise used to foster social and cultural cohesiveness within a community. Psalms are treated as a speaker enacting the role of a king or prayer leader in effort to persuade God to take action, in other words, an appeal to God for action through prose. Great historical figures were celebrated for arguing with God as the persuasion is determined by the hearer, not the speaker, and the Psalms were found to be effective as a poetic appeal.

The purpose of reciting Psalms was to praise God and to testify to the continued faithfulness in him. They were also a public declaration of giving thanks and fulfilling one’s vow of faith and as a testimony to the purity of one’s motives and attitude with God as the primary audience. Psalms were designed to persuade the speaker as well, and place them in the right frame of mind to call out to God in prose from anywhere repeating as to reaffirm oneself in faith. This was also a proclamation of trust in God, as God will attend to those who have been humiliated, deprived or casted down in society.

The journal places importance of continued praise to God through Psalms for future generations as God responds to the faithful. The praising clearly draws on the appeals to ethos, pathos and logos. Psalms fosters social and cultural cohesiveness within a community and God will enter into conversation with the lowliest of individuals, allowing the angriest or most traumatized of people to be capable of praise.


Religious Reasons for Campbell’s View of Emotional Appeals in Philosophy of Rhetoric

            This journal article focused on the use of emotional appeals in preaching. Saint Augustine used emotional appeals to cure disorder while John Locke believed they created disorder by moving a crowd to tears. George Campbell focused on emotional appeals in preaching and in scriptural interpretation. Campbell prepared future ministers to preach and defend the authority of revealed religion while addressing key assumptions about reason and passion. He believed religion is an appropriate situation to use emotional appeals as emotion is a central feature of religion.

Campbell stated the separation of emotional appeals from logical appeals was important because emotional appeals are considered weak, can warp judgment and are the equivalent of verbal force while appeals to logic are based on knowledge and found to be more effective. The purpose of a sermon and the expected audience should be used to determine if there is use of an emotional appeal. For example, to advocate certain doctrines, move a congregation to do what they know they should be doing, and to convert non-believers. Campbell advocates a warm, gentle persuasion, but supports the use of fear if necessary.

Zealous preaching in the grand style may cause a difference in opinion in the congregation and breed division, therefore, a sound mind and gentle delivery is ideal, rather than a frantic or disorganized delivery. Campbell stated arrogance of fanaticism should be avoided and preaching should encourage the promotion of unity. Preachers must be able to execute their own plans with a careful blend of emotional and logical appeals to universally reach their audience. The main interest should be maintaining order and managing uncertainty. Reason and passion are inseparable and must be used in the correct balance to achieve the desired emotions of one’s congregation.


Truthing it in Love”: Henry Ward Beecher’s Homiletic Theories of Truth, Beauty, Love and The Christian Faith

            This journal article focused on Henry Ward Beecher, a 19th century pastor in Brooklyn at the Plymouth Church. Beecher wrote from the style of contemporary political appeals of social values and the notion of American homiletic theology. He believes the tropes of traditional Christian evangelism are alien in modern day. Rather, influences and religious beliefs of the preacher must access an audience through contemporary experiences of the world and link it to an experience with a higher power. Beecher believed one must not argue the gospels but set the gospels in a lived experience so the truth will be acknowledged by the congregation.

Beecher’s new theory of preaching declared its goal to be a fundamental transformation of the listeners. A divinely inspired experience linked to logos and pathos referred to as the “Doctrine of Love”. This divine taste should result in changes to the listeners conduct because it should alter the character of its possessor as a cooperative project between the preacher and the convert. Emphasis is based on love-truth, a truth based pathos, against the traditional logos oriented knowledge of other preachers. A truthful appeal to the congregation, rather than preaching based on the learned knowledge of the pastor.

Beecher considers love, truth and knowledge and the nature of true Christians in his concept of preaching, relying heavily on emotional versions of truth to provide rhetorical theory to overcome the rationalist and doctrinal limitations of American religious discourse. Early Puritans believed reason and natural science served to bolster the understanding of religion and to help bring one to faith. Sermons were organized to appeal to the rational faculties and preachers used a plain style of speech. The audience was expected to listen carefully and analyze the spoken words. These appeals of the “heart” combined intellectual abilities and emotional senses of the congregation.  The use of fear to gain adherence was to be avoided. Rather, a preacher should strive to move an audience to experience and internalize the beauty of Christ’s life, live by his example and feel Christ in their heart, not just know the doctrines in their mind.

Beecher focused on the natural, sinful human condition and their needs and interests in order to move the congregation toward being better humans. His task was to arouse the audience, build their moral condition and continue building until he has completed them as a whole; a “reconstructed manhood” generating a noble idea of how people ought to live and ought to be. Beecher believed he must build up humanity to live up to its God-given potential and make religion attractive, like it was to that of the disciples. He desired to allow the audience to feel Christ’s love, to improve their character by helping them understand their lives, sympathizing with their plights, loving them in Christ, modeling their lives after Christ, and inspiring them to live their faith daily.

The “fire and brimstone” preaching was found to be a sad perversion of the function of imagination to Beecher and he was absolute that Christ must be within the preacher in order to build up the ability of the congregation to appreciate the meaning of Christ through the act of love-truthing. It is the illustration of God’s love and beauty through the preacher that is the fundamental basis of Christian thought and preaching, transforming Christians in the way that believers knew the world and had experienced the manifestation of God’s love. Beecher wanted his audience to have a heart so alive and able to sympathize, that they could relate to everything on the globe and have the power to enjoy this emotion. This sense allowed all to feel included in the love of Christ and in Christian ministry.

Preaching Christianity is not about propositions or sets of rules, but about understanding and expressing God’s love in action. It is based on hope, not fear and Beecher wanted to give all preachers the tools to inspire their listeners to believe in God so they could experience first-hand the beauty and the love-truth of God in the world and in the people around them. This, according to Beecher, is the possibility of rhetoric in theology.


Works Cited

Charney, Davida H. “Performativity and Persuasion in the Hebrew Book of Psalms: A Rhetorical Analysis of Psalms 116 and 22.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly. June 2010:          247-268. Print.

Manolescu, Beth I. “Religious Reasons for Campbell’s View of Emotional Appeals in Philosophy   of Rhetoric.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly. Apr. 2007: 159-180. Print.

Souders, Michael. “Truthing it in Love”: Henry Ward Beecher’s Homiletic Theories of Truth,        Beauty, Love, and the Christian Faith.” Rhetoric Society Quarterly. Sept.          2011: 316-339.        Print.

The passion of one woman’s social concern

Francis Bacon’s Advancement of Learning applied to Margaret Fell’s Women’s Speaking Justified.

Francis Liked Bacon

Francis Liked Bacon

Pattie Crider

WRT 305

Response 15

October 16, 2013


The passion of one woman’s social concern


            Bacon’s ideology was that scientific discourse is a technical treatment of truth and rhetoric links knowledge to social concerns. Bacon stated that applying reason to imagination would be successful to move the will of the hearer and with that ability involved great responsibility. Fell, an outspoken woman of her time, believed that she was a prophet of God and raised the concern that women were afraid to speak in fear of male retaliation.

As Bacon had stated, bringing the knowledge of social concerns (such as this genuine fear of speaking by women) was important and that the person bringing forth such affection and imagination for the future must be responsible for their actions. The message Fell wished to bring to light (that of women’s rights) was done with great affection as it was important to her specifically.  Her ideas were supported in Bacon’s theory in that those following this strong-minded woman could reason the importance of feminine thought for the future.

Fell was possibly the first to seriously question the rejection of women’s roles in the church. Her affection to this cause was brought forward in their present time and her rhetoric involving Biblical text detailed the roles of woman therein. She passionately stood her ground in support that women not only have the right to speak and be involved but to also be a leader in teaching God’s word. It took a strong woman to speak what would eventually become accepted in the future. It was this passion and reasoning that moved the imagination of other’s will to accept women in the leadership roles they hold in churches today.

Ramus the Radical

Pattie Crider

WRT 305

Response 14

October 11, 2013

Ramus the Radical

Ramus was intent on separating philosophy and rhetoric and redefining rhetoric as a whole. His method of arguing was rather harsh as he called out Quintilian. I was particularly struck by his argument about the morality of rhetors and basically stating that one did not have to be of high ethics to speak rhetorically. This was the complete opposite of what we have been learning, but a more honest approach.

Perhaps Ramus, with his graphic representations, was onto something, other than bashing other rhetors. Ramus came from a lowly background and had to work as a servant to the wealthy kids in college as he earned his degree.  Maybe this made him a little bitter. No matter the reason, he believed that rhetoric consisted of only style and delivery and morality had nothing to do with the process. Even if Ramus was incredibly rude and was eventually murdered, I have to agree with him. The morality of a person really has nothing to do with their ability to teach.

Ramus didn’t believe the skills taught at college would prepare students for using rhetoric after graduation. He wanted rhetoric and logic separated and more focus placed on effective language, even language other than Latin. He also recognized the importance of language being recorded and happily sent his work off to be printed. His focus on dialectic dealt with reason and grammar while rhetoric dealt with speech and was split between style and delivery.

Basically, Ramus broke away from the 5 canons and developed his own concept, breaking the rules that had been written in the past. This rule breaking and rudeness is what most likely cost him his life but he was alive long enough to make his ideology known.

Of Conversation

A contemporary look at how women might converse online as a group in comparison to the rhetoric of Madeliene de Scudery in the 17th Century.

Response 16

Women Messaging as a Group 

Tina: Finally, chat time with my peeps! I struggled through a weekend visit of the in-laws. They are so opinionated and they only find faults my attempts to please them.

Lucy: Oh girl, I hear that! I dread visits from my hubby’s family. My father-in-law is an ass-chasing piece of work.

Lisa: Last time my in-laws visited, I seriously considered poisoning their food but was afraid one of the kids might eat off their plate.

Tina: LOL @Lisa.  That is just wrong!

Lucy: Baahahaha, but we’ve all had those poisoning fantasies, especially at holiday meals. I feel like my father-in-law is constantly leering at me.

Lisa: A slow poisoning would be ideal.  Make them suffer for a few hours, so I can enjoy it.

Tina: Remind me to never piss you off Lisa.

Lisa: I would never poison anyone but I can fantasize. My father-in-law is a defense lawyer and his dinner stories make me sick.  He represents these scumbags, knowing they are guilty but happy to take their money.

Lucy: Oh, that is terrible. I’ve never liked lawyers so I’m sure I wouldn’t like your father-in-law. He doesn’t look at you like a piece of meat does he?

Lisa: No, thank God. I think he might be a closet case to be honest. His wife is beautiful, but he shows no interest in her.  She is always boo-hooing to me that they don’t have sex and all he wants to do is hang at that new “men’s only” gym.

Tina: OMG, you mother-in-law talks sex with you? Eeeeek!

Lucy: Maybe he has a secret lover at the gym! A work-out buddy, know what I mean?!

Lisa: Stop it…you’re both making me feel sick to my stomach! I’m just glad they only visit every few months.

Tina: Consider yourself lucky. Mine are over nearly every weekend.

Lucy: If I had to wear pants and a turtleneck every weekend just to keep my father-in-laws eyes off my ass and boobs I would lose it. I’ve even mentioned to my husband that his dad is ogling me and he says it’s all in my head.

Lisa: What a jerk! How can’t he notice?

Lucy: Probably because his eyes are too focused on whatever football game is on the tv.

Tina: Men! We only need them to make babies, after that I wonder what good they are.

Lisa: They certainly aren’t any good for conversation. If Rick utters three words during dinner it’s a miracle. I’m surprised he breathes between stuffing bites of food into his mouth.

Tina: Does he chew with his mouth open?

Lisa: Yes!  How did you know?

Tina: Cause that’s when he breathes.


Lisa: Toooooo funny Tina…and probably true. It was good chatting with yous, I gotta go do the dishes.

Tina: Ok hon, you have fun with that.  Wash them in your skivvies while you can.

Lisa: My luck, the pervert would show up and just walk in, catching me in the act of washing dishes in Victoria’s Secrets.

Lucy: You two crack me up.  Chat with you later!  Oxox

Tina: Wear footie pj’s and you’ll never have to worry.

Lisa: That’s not a bad idea.  I can’t think of anything less sexy! Good night ladies!

Tina: Good nite luvs!


Bold Creative Copying

Pattie Crider

WRT 305

Response 13

October 9, 2013


Bold Creative Copying

                According to Erasmus, copia is the process of copying existing texts to a new format and adding a splash of color. By that I mean, Erasmus could take a single sentence and write it a hundred different ways, saying the same thing but rearranging words or phrases, adding synonyms, metaphors and applying other advanced composition. Erasmus copied text and added flavor, making the text more appealing. He taught this method noting the importance of avoiding words that are vulgar (in sound) or clichéd, or even unusual, to that of common people. Erasmus believed one should never use the same word twice when there are many words that mean the same thing and can be used, rather than repeat. He wanted his copia to be a bold invention of language, like that of a poet. He believed this style of writing would create a resurgence in Latin text. It didn’t.

This type of copying is still useful today. Erasmus wrote carefully in Latin making sure each word was perfectly chosen. In professional writing we are constantly instructed to write and re-write, creating draft after draft, searching for the perfect words to make the perfect sentence. While we only read a small section of Erasmus work, I understand why he stresses the point of choosing the correct words. The work must flow–almost sing to the reader–to keep them engaged. Erasmus recognized the importance of this bold, colorful, well thought-out, writing style and applied it to existing text, ramping them up in language.

For example, I think this type of copying would be useful in re-writing Christine de Pizan’s, The Treasure of the City of Ladies. This text could be copied to a modern princess story, updating the language and adding advanced composition. The section on the nature of women could certainly use a re-write to make it applicable to the modern women of today. Regardless of the text, copia is still used to take “old stories” and make them “new” to readers.

Dear Christine de Pizan~The Nature of Women

Pattie Crider


Response 12

October 7, 2013


Christine 1364-1430

The Nature of Women

Dear Christine de Pizan,


I read a section from The Treasure of the City of Ladies, and was quite taken by your work. The selection on slander was fascinating, but my letter is to address the nature of women you described back in the 1400’s.

In the 21st century, men no longer have the control over the world that they once held. In fact, in my opinion, if it were not for the amazing, ethical, eloquent women that have risen through the centuries, our world would be in great demise. Not that we do not have our fair share of problems to still work through.

While men still hold the higher ranks in the work force, in political seats and military service, women have grown in ways you never would have imagined. We no longer are expected to be “timid”, which I interpreted as shy or quiet. I agree that men are more hot-headed than women, and that in general, women handle the urgencies in life, putting themselves behind the needs of others.

Women today have changed in numerous ways that would blow your mind—if you were alive that is—like, we don’t even have to wear dresses. And women can take any career they find themselves called to, even a president. The President of the United States has always been a man, but women are stepping forward and challenging the male dominated position.

I’m sure this is a bit over-whelming to you. The fact that I’m reading in college, what you wrote so long ago makes it clear to me that you were an amazing writer, poet, and orator in your time. I am blessed to read your fine art and grateful for the knowledge I have gained.




Pattie de Dover

Dear Bart of Springfield, son of Homer, friend of Flanders and Master to Santa’s Little Helper

Pattie Crider

WRT 305

Response 11

October 4, 2013


It’s About Who You Know


            What struck me the most in the assigned reading was the importance of “who” the writer or speaker will address. In the Principles of Letter Writing the “who” is the addressee of the letter, or in some instances of addressees, to “whom” the message is intended.  In the text Forma Praedicandi,a group is being addressed as a congregation. In this setting, the speaker must know their audience in order for the sermon to properly move them.

In this time period, letter writing was an important part of communication. It was an art form performed by the educated, for the educated; common people were not written letters. Because of this, the salutation, “an expression of greeting conveying a friendly sentiment” was important. The author was expected to properly greet the recipient with a title, give a mention of their location, drop names of associated friends, and even bestow blessing and praise. The examples of salutations and circumstances of their use were plentiful, but the main point was to secure the goodwill of the recipient first, so the remainder of the letter is read. The section on writing to an “enemy” or “against the recipient” was fascinating, perhaps a plan to piss them off into reading the remainder of the letter.

The importance of a preacher knowing their audience in order to write a sermon that will instruct and move a congregation is the focus of Forma Praedicandi. The sermons were written to address the congregation and instruct in Biblical text and proper morality. A preacher who knows the members of his (her) congregation will be prepared to write and present a sermon that will connect to the audience and produce the desire outcome. Both of the texts present the importance of addressing the person(s) in which the letter or speech is intended.

Augustine’s 3 goals will score

Pattie Crider

WRT 305

Response  10

October 2, 2013

Augustine the party boy

Augustine the party boy


Augustine’s 3 goals will score

Augustine used rhetoric to achieve three goals: to instruct, to please and to persuade.  He believed in using three styles of speech, subdued, moderate and grand, to achieve his three goals.  The application of this rhetorical approach to Christian doctrine is an effective way to formulate a sermon and share with an audience. Augustine is now a saint, so he apparently knew what he was preaching about.

So does Augustine’s method work in the twenty-first century? Yes, it does, and this is how.  Augustine taught Christianity to an audience or congregation, in person, using the appropriate style to properly inform, please and persuade. Presently, preachers are doing the same, only now, they are on television or the Internet. The change of setting does not change the development process or the way the speech is delivered.

When a preacher wants to teach, they speak in a subdued tone, allowing the information to register with the listener. When a preacher wants to please an audience, such as retelling a Biblical story or passage, a more lively style of delivery is used to draw them in with their words. And when a preacher feels action from an individual is necessary, his words will be shared in grand eloquence, demanding the listening ear of the audience.

Augustine noted that the delivery of a speech seeking to achieve his goal may need to be adjusted depending on the audience. I understood that to mean, if his audience would benefit (learn) from a more or less dramatic speech, then it should be so adjusted. Preaching on television or online (and I haven’t watched much) seems to regularly be in the grand style. This could be for many reasons, possibly because the preacher knows the sermon can be viewed by an unlimited number of people.

I’m not a fan of preachers on television or the Internet because so many in the past have fallen short of being “good men” and failed miserably at having a “divine love” for God. Their motives seem driven by dramatic speeches in hopes of receiving monetary donations. Do all preachers who have a presence on television or even YouTube mean they are not “good men”? Of course not, but I would prefer to be taught, pleased or persuaded by a preacher that stands before their congregation and moves me to action in person with their language.

%d bloggers like this: