Speeches Address Audiences Not Topics

Lloyd Bitzer in his journal article, "The Rhetorical Situation" (Philosophy & Rhetoric, 1.1 1963, p. 3) outlined . . . well he outlined exactly what the title says: what makes a sitiuation rhetorical.  He explained that it takes three things:

1.  Exiegence--a situation in the world that needs to change.

2.  Audience--a group of people who are able to make change happen.

3.  Constraints--Resources and limitations available with regard to the means of persuading the audience.  

The point being that speeches--which are the original rhetorical act--come into being because of a situation in the world of people and events.  Speeches are meant to create change.  Speeches do not change topics . . . unless, of course, you've done ground breaking research and that's what the speech is about.  People have the will and capacity to change and people make up the audience of the rhetorical situation.  Yet, so often speakers begin preparing speeches thinking about what they are going to say (topic) rather than who they are talking to and what the needs of the situation are.

Some Questions Speakers Should Ask Before Preparing Speech Content

1.  Demographic questions:  Who are they? What's their age and age range?  What's their ethnicity or ethicities?  What is their educational background?  MOST IMPORTANTLY:  What do they have in common with each other?  What makes them an audience?  In the process of answering that question, you may discover you have more than one audience in the same room.

2.  Who are you to them?  Do you have a certain built-in authority that the audience acknowledges?  Are you practically unknown to them and will have to do some work to introduce yourself to them?  (BTW, never underestimate the value of a good introduction of the speaker).  

3.  What language and understanding resources are and are not available to the audience?  Frequently speakers speak past audiences by using technical language, abbreviations, and verbal shortcuts that they understand but the audience may not.  Fred Craddock, who taught generations of preachers how to preach, once said, "Your congregation is willing to run with you, but you have to remember that you have a 10-hour head start."  Applying that to speeches in general, I would say you better know how big your head start is on the audience. In many cases, the speaker has a head-start of a few years, a degree or two, and professional competence. There will be things you have to explain in order to help an audience run with you.  A lot of misunderstanding can be avoided if speakers begin by defining their terms.  

  

4.  How do they feel emotionally about the situation that they're in?  Just as people come from their own frame of reference intellectually they also come from their own frame of reference emotionally.  Are they happy?  Nervous? Grieving? Confused? Frustrated? Angry?  Some speeches miss their audience because the speaker misunderstands or responds poorly or completely ignores the emotional front of the audience.

There are other questions to consider and these questions are preliminary.  However, speech preparation that begins by addressing the topic rather than the audience has a greater potential to miss the mark than a speech that begins by assessing the situation into which a speech is spoken.  As speakers begin preparing their speech they should remember--speeches address audiences not topics.  

Mercy Me makes Spiritual Pizza

I love pizza, even bad pizza.  That's neither a confession nor a badge of honor.  That's because pizza isn't really junk food and it isn't really health food.  Many of the things that come on a pizza are good for you.  I suspect that most things that come on a pizza are good for you in moderation.  The problems with pizza--and I'm saying this as someone who is definitely not a nutritionist--are proportion and portion.  Meat and cheese and fat are good for us in small amounts.  Tomatoes, peppers, artichokes, mushrooms and olives are good for us, but we probably need to eat larger amounts of the vegetables than the meats and cheeses.  I suspect that the meat/cheese to vegetable ratio on most of the pizzas I eat are reversed from where they should be to truly be healthy.  I don't know what to do with the crust at this point, but since bread has become such a bad thing in pop-diets, I'm guessing it falls into the "too much of a good thing" category.  It's a proportion issue.  The other problem with pizza--and it's more my problem than the pizza's--is portion.  I can and have put down a lot of pizza at one time.  I start eating and I can't stop.  

I think some things in American popular Christianity are spiritual pizzas--some imbalances in the ratios and real problems if consumed to excess.  I think that MercyMe's song "Flawless" is a good example. https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/9b/5c/11/9b5c1127287783ef30b8c016e60720bf.jpg

The theology of the song lyrics is typical of a particular approach to grace and salvation.  It says that people are incapable of saving themselves through their own efforts no matter how hard we try.  The singer refers to himself as a "wretch."  The theology quite self-consciously evokes John Newton's "Amazing Grace" and the song quotes both the lyrics and melodyJulia Johnston's "Marvelous Grace of Our Loving Lord." (BTW, in the old 1976 Baptist Hymnal I sang from growing up, these songs were right next to each other and often sung as a medley).  God's grace is understood as God's willingness to forgive us though we do not deserve it.  Grace is unearned favor.  This is meat and cheese theological interpretation of the cross: because Jesus died on the cross for our sins God no longer counts our sins against us.  We are flawless.  

I believe this to be true.  Indeed, when it comes time for me to leave this earth, I believe I will step out into eternity on this promise.  Lately I've been using the benediction from the end of Jude where it declares that Christ is able to "keep you from falling and present you before God's glorious presence without fault and with great joy." Yet, like the pizza analogy I believe we disproportionately emphasize the cross as the locus of our forgiveness and neglect the "vegetables."  The cross is also our model for how to live.  Those who receive Christ must take up their cross and follow Christ.  We are called to have the mind of Christ who was "obedient unto death, even death on the cross." This interpretation of the cross is often missing or insufficiently expressed in popular Christian spirituality--Contemporary Christian music, literature and preaching.  Like the vegetables on a pizza, it's there, but there needs to be a lot more of it to be considered healthy.  

I believe the video to this song--which I enjoyed--has a theological "flaw." In the video, various people who have aspects of their lives that some might regard as flaws are shown--a child with autism, two children with down syndrome, a woman who has been unable to grow hair since she was a child, a woman born without a right arm.  Along with these people some of the other characters are identified with things we might more readily consider sin--an out of balance worklife, failing to be a spiritual leader in the home, a past full of regrets.  And the song's lyrics are quite explictly about our status as sinners saved by grace. I have made the mistake of viewing personal sins/spiritual shortcomings and physical/biological characteristics in the same light.  But, we should not do that.  As Christians we cannot imply that illnesses or physical characteristics that create challenges are on par with sin.  It's too easy to go from that to suggesting that they result from sin.  I get where MercyMe is going.  In the eyes of God, the child with down syndrome is flawless and our own perspective needs to adjust to see others with the eyes of God.  That's a good message, but I think it's a message for a different song and a different video.  

Even though I think "Flawless" is spiritual pizza, I really like pizza--and I really like that pizza.  So, maybe I'll have a slice, eat in moderation, and be sure to have a healthier salad along with it.  

Sermon Sunday, June 21, 2015

Illusion of Invincibility
Genesis 6:9-22
These are the descendants of Noah. Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generation; Noah walked with God. 10 And Noah had three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth.

11 Now the earth was corrupt in God’s sight, and the earth was filled with violence. 12 And God saw that the earth was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted its ways upon the earth. 13 And God said to Noah, “I have determined to make an end of all flesh, for the earth is filled with violence because of them; now I am going to destroy them along with the earth. 14 Make yourself an ark of cypressb wood; make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and out with pitch. 15 This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, its width fifty cubits, and its height thirty cubits. 16 Make a roofc for the ark, and finish it to a cubit above; and put the door of the ark in its side; make it with lower, second, and third decks. 17 For my part, I am going to bring a flood of waters on the earth, to destroy from under heaven all flesh in which is the breath of life; everything that is on the earth shall die. 18 But I will establish my covenant with you; and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you. 19 And of every living thing, of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground according to its kind, two of every kind shall come in to you, to keep them alive. 21 Also take with you every kind of food that is eaten, and store it up; and it shall serve as food for you and for them.” 22 Noah did this; he did all that God commanded him.

When I was in Elementary School, my principal was Mr. Jack Herring.  He had been at Johnston Elementary for years and he was loved.  Well I was a part of a group of boys that was threatening to scuffle with another group of boys.  It was pre-teen posturing.  And, I’ll be quick to add, “They started it.”  Needless to say a teacher intercepted the mounting tensions after school and directed us to visit Mr. Herring in his office . . . immediately . . . and we went.  Mr. Herring sat behind his large wooden desk, he heard the indictment of our broo-haha.  He reached down and slid open one of the wooden draws of his wooden desk, and he pulled out a paddle.  It was large and decorated and it looked to unwieldy to be taken seriously.  He said this is one of my paddles.  You know, I don’t like using this paddle.  It was a gift.  But it’s too heavy to really swing.  Kind of hurts my hand.  Then he reached down into his drawer and pulled  out a thin paddle, worn smooth with age, it had athletic taped wrapped around one end, “No,” he said holding the paddle in his hand, “This is the one I prefer.  It’s light enough to swing but solid enough to sting.”   He laid that paddle down on the desk.  He reached down and pulled out another and said, “I used to use this one but it cracked.”  He pulled out a couple more, holding each one, surveying its size, weight, velocity, grip.  He laid each one side-by-side on his desk and said finally, “Boys, I don’t want to use any of these paddles.  But I will if I have to.  Do you think I have to use one of these paddles today?”  Silently we shook our heads, “No.” “Good, don’t make me use them then.”  Then he told us to leave his office.  That was the end of the scuffling. 

Whenever I have to deal with a story like God sending a flood to wipe out the majority of humanity in order to start over again, or ordering certain people executed because they didn’t take worship seriously, or casting people in the lake of fire, I struggle with how to make sense of it.  How do we reconcile our message that God loved the world (the whole world) so much that God gave his only son for the world?  How do we square these stories with the affirmation that The Lord, the Lord, is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love?  How do we make it make sense alongside the proclamation that God is love and those who abide in love abide in God?  Yesterday during Bible and Brunch we talked about a second century Christian leader who was eventually denounced as a heretic named Marcion.  Marcion believed, at least according to the press clippings, that the God of the Old Testament was a totally different God than the God proclaimed in Jesus Christ.  The God of the Old Testament was judgmental and angry but that God had been defeated by this other God—the God of love and mercy.  And that’s one way to do it, I suppose, but I don’t believe it’s true and neither did Jesus by the way.  The early church rejected his heresy. It seems that anytime anyone created a completely coherent system to explain God, the main church dismissed it as heresy.  God is free and at times in predictable. We do not have permission, I don't think, to edit out the parts simply because they don't jive with the version of God we've created in our minds. And at least one way of seeing these judgment stories for me is to remember that perhaps God is like Mr. Jack Herring.  Laying out the paddles—there’s destruction by flood (but I promised never to use that), there’s an earthquake to that opens us and destroys the offenders, there’s striking people with diseases if they are dishonest, or taking their life suddenly because they withhold their gift intended for me.  Perhaps the judgmental texts are like that are God’s way of saying, “I have these paddles, but I don’t want to use them.  Children, don’t make me have to use them.” 

We set the scripture readings months ago and chose to use the story of Noah’s Ark long before we knew what this week would hold.  We are in a series called the “I illusions.”  All the texts are taken from Genesis.  We started with the illusion of innocence—with Adam and Eve.  Then with the illusion of isolation-with Cain and Abel.  And today we move to the illusion of invincibility.  It begins with a man not like Adam or Cain but one described as righteous, blameless, and pious.  The opening verse contains it’s own three point sermon.  Noah was righteous—he had integrity with himself; he was blameless—he had faithful dealings with his peers; he walked with God.  The description  evokes the words of Micah—God has shown you what is good and what the Lord requires—do justice, love mercy, walk humbly with God.  

We imagined then that we would emphasize the nature of humanity’s sin at the time of God’s grievance with humanity.  Noah’s neighbors were guilty of violence.  It’s mentioned more than once.  Contrary to the Puritanical judgment that sin is limited to  gluttony, debauchery, bad habits and bad hygiene, the story is clear that what grieved the heart of God most was humanity’s destruction of humanity.  In contrast with the “good” God saw in creation in chapter 1,  here God sees all of creation—and not just humanity—as corrupt, prone to  decay, not worth keeping around.  The earth itself, and not just the people on it, have stopped acting the way they should.  Clarence Jordan sees in this as the first stage in human development.  It is a stage of unlimited aggression. When the law is given in Exodus, a rule is created that says and eye for an eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot—in Latin its called lex talionis the law of talion, the law of retaliation.  Which says that the punishment corresponds in kind and degree to the injury.  With the introduction of lex talionis we move from unlimited aggression to limited aggression.  Then there develops a moral principle that says, “you shall love your neighbor but hate your enemy.”  The third stage is from limited aggression to limited love.  But finally with Jesus Christ we hear—love your enemy, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you and pray for those who despitefully use you and persecute you.  The movement is complete from unlimited aggression in Noah, to limited aggression in the law, to limited love in the commands, to unlimited love in Christ.  But it is still hard to believe that God’s ultimate plan is unlimited love, even of one’s enemies when God’s answer to humanity’s violence is their complete destruction—with the exception of Noah and his wife, and their three sons and their wives.

We  planned on saying all of that before this week.  Before a young man, radicalized by racist white supremacy, entered Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, SC, sat through an hour’s worth of Bible study and then opened fire killing, Rev. Clementa Pickney, Rev. Daniel Simmons Sr., Myra Thompson, Cynthia Hurd, Rev. Sharonda Singleton, Tywanza Sanders, Rev. DePayne Middleton-Doctor, Susie Jackson, and Ethel Lance.  That was before the flood of rhetoric filled what should have been quiet spaces of lament into stormy corners of advocacy.  We planned on saying that before another group was victimized.  Some of us wanting to distance this shooter’s actions from the racism prevalent in our culture have claimed he was mentally ill.  That kind of language displays the worst sort of use of the phrase  “mental illness.”  Mental illness is a broad category that contains many complex and difficult disorders like anxiety, depression, identity disorders like schizophrenia, and eating disorders just to name a few.  The mentally ill have a hard enough time being treated with the dignity they deserve and getting the treatment they need.  We should resist throwing around the term mental illness as a way of explaining away the inexplicable.  The mentally ill are not evil. Let's not burden them with this. 

We had planned on talking about the illusion of invincibility before the events of this week would so thoroughly and painfully reveal our vulnerability.  My heart hurts and I despair.  I am too weary to  speak of humanity’s violence toward humanity right now—not the ancient violence of Noah’s day nor the senseless violence of our own.  I do not wish to speak of God’s justice or rightness or capacity to judge because the implications frighten me.  We have not advanced so far beyond unlimited aggression; there’s no way to practice an eye for an eye with someone who has destroyed so much; I’m not sure I can trust my neighbor much less love him; and as for loving my enemy . . . . In the midst of the storm we want an escape hatch that takes us to the rainbow instantly. Get me to some place where I can assure myself that God doesn’t really act this way.  NO, cannot act this way.  But the escape hatch isn’t there and if it was, I’m afraid we’d find that it’s not a rainbow that awaits us—not a promise that everything will be alright.  I am not certain as to how we reconcile all of this with the overarching view that God is love. I do think That stories like Noah need to be in front of us because we risk putting God in a kind of box defined by our own conception of love.  We want to insist that God never does anything that we do not like and by that we say that’s what it means to claim God is love.  But God is free and God is just and the God of love is still a God of holiness with high expectations for how we are to live and treat one another.  We cannot harbor the illusion of our invincibility and live as people defined by violence and pretend that before God there is no reckoning. 

It shouldn’t have taken an aggressive act against a church to arouse my consciousness but it has. God’s authority stretches beyond the walls of any religious building.  The violence in Charleston, SC is the latest chapter in a horrific narrative that includes  McKinney, Garland, Baltimore, Ferguson, Boston, Newtown, Aurora . . . the list goes on. In my lifetime, I’ve not seen a season as volatile and frightening as the last few years.  This includes the difficult years of 1992 (the LA riots), 1993 (Waco compound burning), and 1994 (Oklahoma City Bombings).  Evil people acting in evil ways will be with us. We know that.  What we do not know is whether good people will counteract and mitigate the evil or simply acquiesce.  My sisters and brothers, we cannot simply hope to simply tread water.  There is an ark to be built and lives to be saved.  We build that ark through forging relationships with people in our community.  We cannot let the fear of who our neighbor might be overwhelm what our response to our neighbor must be.  I have reached out to some neighboring churches and tomorrow night at 7 pm, we will be at the College Park Center to hold a prayer vigil for Emanuel AME and for the nation and for ourselves.  We’ve also been invited to attend a Men’s day gathering at Greater Community Missionary Baptist Church next Sunday and I hope we will nurture that developing relationship. Today, I do not feel that God has cast the rainbow quite yet.  Nor do I believe God is pulling out paddles and placing them in front of us.  I believe God is giving us the materials and dimensions of an Ark and is beckoning us to build--build connections, build relationships, throw open the doors that others may enter and together we may sail the choppy seas of reconciliation. 

In Defense of Annoying People

1.  We overuse a metaphor we still find helpful.  "Journey" may be overused and feel self-helpish or new agey or just flakey, but how else do we offer a positive frame for a period of time that has been filled with ups and downs and remains unpredictable?  The metaphor offered clarity at some point and that's why it gets repeated.

2.  We inadequately express ideas that cannot be adequately expressed.  For example, I believe God acted to reconcile the division between us and God's self.  You may disagree with the assumption that a division existed (exists).  You may disagree with the conviction that God had to act to reconcile.  However, we offer ideas in hopes that people will collaborate with us as we seek truth.  

3.  We insert our own human failings into difficult situations.  We hug when we're supposed to shake hands.  We refrain from touching when we're supposed to offer affection. We say the wrong thing trying to console.  We process our own insecurities when trying to relate to someone else's.  Appropriate responses differ from person to person and we have not been given the mind-reading gifft.  Good intentions do not excuse bad actions, but we chose being present and making a mistake instead of leaving someone to suffer in isolation.   

4.  We ask honest questions.  Not every question is a rhetorical question, a loaded question, or a trap.  Sometimes, we are asking a genuine question.  Instead of filling in the blanks with your judgment of what you think we're thinking, could you simply fill in the blanks with what you're thinking?