Rhetorical Analysis and Religion

I have had extensive experience with rhetorical analysis for many years based in the Bible. There have been many times, when observing various religious sects’ stances on certain passages of Scripture that I have had to step back and determine why a specific doctrine was presented the way it was. For the sake of this blog I will use one specific example.

On a certain occasion I witnessed a man preach about the principle of tithing. Tithing is something that I am very familiar with, and understand very well. As I listened, I noticed that this man had changed a few basic principles in order to make tithing more “attractive” to his audience. He used devices such as testimonials from people who had been “blessed” by paying their tithing, he made promises specific to his audience (in this case it was a group of approximately 250 very poor Brazilians) that they would be taken care of if they gave up everything that they had for the Lord, he even said that the Lord was poor and needed whatever they could give him. While I didn’t necessarily agree with what he was saying, I could understand someone who has nothing giving up everything in order have something. The way he presented this version of tithing almost had me convinced to give up everything that I have and donate it to the Lord.

A few nights earlier I attended a sermon given by this same man to a group of business owners. While he discussed the same principle, it appeared that he had taken another approach in order to captivate his audience. These people that he spoke to were financially secure and relatively content with their existence. So in order to get his point across he resorted to promising death and damnation if they didn’t abide by this heavenly law, and give up “whatever they had leftover from the month”.

With both congregations his main goal was to gain money. As a “representative of God” people assumed he had the authority to make those promises. The weight of the donation box as it passed by me suggested that he was very convincing… both times. A master of rhetorical strategy.

-Scott