Using Argumentation Theory in a World Hostile to Truth

When Christ uses the image of a serpent, He refers to their shrewdness or craftiness. We must overcome the negative connotations of snakes and strive to be what Christ calls us to be. This shrewdness could easily be associated with the craft of rhetoric and, more specifically, argumentation theory.

The recorded study of argumentation began in the classical Greek period. Aristotle presents what he calls an enthymeme. It is a syllogism with a missing part.

When the middle element is left out, the audience must supply it. In a sense this is leading the audience to be a participant.

The principle upon which Aristotle builds much of his rhetoric is that an audience is more likely to be persuaded if they are actively participating. This is related to Stephen Toulmin's concepts presented during the 1950's. Toulmin suggested a graphic model for analyzing argument, which has three basic elements: (1) Data—an accepted statement, (2) Claim—statement to be proven, and (3) Warrant—a value or belief that makes the claim valid in the mind of the listener. These parts are interrelated and each is necessary for the argument.

The data and the claim must be stated, but not the warrant. One might say a warrant is the common ground in the area of values. Toulmin's concern for the audience is expressed even more strongly in Chaim Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyteca's The New Rhetoric. In this lengthy and complicated work, the bottom line is that the audience is what matters. This audience-focused approach expresses itself when they suggest that the audience may not fully buy into an argument but could rather increase in their adherence to a position.

This audience-centered attitude is even more pronounced in "Rogerian" argumentation. While Carl Rogers, the famed psychologist, never articulated a theory of argumentation, others—namely Young, Becker and Pike in Rhetoric: Discovery and Change—have taken this client-centered approach and applied it to argumentation. Their basic premise is to view the argument from the audience's view point.

The last argumentation theorist to be mentioned is a popularizer of this field, Deborah Tannen. She writes from the perceptive of a linguist and has given us not only help in the area of argument but has published a helpful book on gender and communication. The point of Tannen's book is stated in the title: The Argument Culture: Stopping America's War of Words. She shows how our everyday vocabulary contains hostile, inflammatory words that have militaristic overtones. It is no longer a game of basketball; it is the battle for the title.

This brief summary of argumentation theorists gives us just a hint of how much work is being devoted to argumentation. When their concepts are in submission to Scriptures and to orthodox theology, many principles remain that can help us.

Now that we have reviewed in a summary fashion some biblical principles concerning humility and been introduced to representative argumentation theories, an attempt will be made to combine these into a set of principles. Admittedly, argumentation is very dynamic and refuses to follow set patterns. So this is not a step-by-step process; rather it is describing a mindset for preachers. Perhaps these will help us sheep as we seek to be shrewd as serpents and innocent as doves.

I assume that the normal principles of homiletics are being practiced: solid exegesis that leads to a sermon that is clear, interesting and relevant. The following principles are designed to augment these proven concepts.

1. Desire to see audience benefit. To a person committed to the proclamation of godly truths, loving our audience might seem second nature; but we must remember our sinful nature. Though we can never be certain that our motives are pure, we can, at least, actively pray for the good of our audience. We must consciously have their good as the aim of our discourse, and we must aggressively think of ourselves as their servants. This is not the view that seeks only to win, nor is it seeking a win/win middle ground. To be innocent as doves and shrewd as serpents, we must seek to put "win" in the column of our listeners.

2. State the opposition's view with accuracy and respect. We know to identify and address perceived opposition, but we must not stop there; we should strive to present how the audience might feel about an issue. When we preach toward repentance, we may think we are presenting the congregation's opposition by saying, "Sin is fun…" and we quickly add, "…but only for a season." Our acknowledgment of sin being fun is a good start in presenting how a congregation might feel, but we need to go further. Sin is not simply fun; it is part of a person's lifestyle, and it makes sense to them. In no way do we affirm sin; but we need to let them know that we recognize how hard and how disruptive repentance can be. We need to be cautious here lest we end up like the dispensational eschatology professor who presented the amillennial view with such effort that he unwillingly converted some of his premillenial students!