Sacred Rhetoric in the 21^st Century

1. What is the sacred? What is the religious? How do you recognize the religious and/or the sacred when it is manifesting in discourse?

The Sacred: experiences that urge reverence or seem worthy of veneration or praise; awe inspiring encounters with the mysterious or the divine; moments set apart as extraordinary; a source of evidence for the religious.

The Religious: sets of beliefs, practices, and values that bind groups of people together; points of identification in which there is shared acknowledgement of what is sacred and what is profane; the formalization or codification of experiences deemed worthy of recording; an effort to theorize the sacred; an attempt to explain that which cannot be empirically tested.

In thinking through the qualities of the sacred and the religious as they are manifest in discourse, I keep circling back to three distinctions: (1) Aristotle’s divisions (deliberative, forensic, epideictic), (2) James Kinneavy’s aims of discourse (referential, persuasive, literary, and expressive), and (3) the degree of emotional, intellectual, and volitional processing that has taken place at the point of composition, utterance, or design. According to the definitions of the sacred and the religious set forth above, their manifestations in discourse are likely to emerge in different ways. The sacred, when manifest, is apt to take the form of epideictic rhetoric, share the qualities of expressive discourse, and exist in an early state in the rhetor’s mind, heart, and will. Religious discourse, on the other hand, is likely to take the form of deliberative rhetoric, share the qualities of persuasive discourse, and exist in a later state in the rhetor’s mind, heart, and will.

Based on my definition of the sacred, sacred discourse is an attempt to articulate extraordinary experiences. It is an effort to communicate the astonishing, the praiseworthy, and the mysterious. Sacred rhetoric, in other words, endeavors to create meaning out of, and give shape to, the best of experience. It is an honorific response to an awe-inspiring moment that has not been formulized. Sacred rhetoric seeks to bring forth that which is praiseworthy for the purpose of displaying an extraordinary experience or object of praise. In this way sacred rhetoric is consistent with Lawrence Rosenfield’s notion of epideictic rhetoric. Sacred rhetoric shows forth experience not for the purposes of mere display, but to call attention to the extraordinary moments (internal or external) in human experience that would otherwise remain unnoticed. In discussing Rosenfield’s view of epideictic in his introduction to Rhetorics of Display, Larry Prelli explains that “At its best, epideictic calls for collective acknowledgement of virtue’s presence; it ‘acts to unshroud…notable deeds in order to let us gaze at the aura glowing from within’” (3). Through such display, the members of the audience “called to gaze upon the reality of excellence disclosed through the exemplary instances manifested before them…undergo an epiphany or otherwise draw inspiration from the epideictic encounter” (Prelli 3). As a result of such occasions, particular virtues, beliefs, and values are given “presence” (Perelman 35). By bringing such experiences before the mind of an audience, values and beliefs are fortified, challenged, and even invented.

In attempting to flesh out the qualities of sacred discourse in accordance with the definition of the sacred I’ve established here, Kinneavy’s discussion of expressive discourse is also useful. Kinneavy explains that “when the language product is dominated by the clear design of the writer or speaker to discharge his emotions, achieve his own individuality, or embody his personal or group aspirations in the discourse…the discourse tends to be expressive”(136). Many attempts to convey the sacred, it seems to me, would fit this description, because sacred discourse, as it is defined here, attempts to communicate an “actual” experience—whether in the rhetor’s consciousness or in the material realm. Such experiences would need to be expressed in a mode that permits the rhetor to use figures of speech to make the sacred moment present, for as C.S. Lewis notes in “The Language of Religion,” “The very essence of our life as conscious beings, all day and every day, consists of something which cannot be communicated except by hints, similes, metaphors” (186). The mode most fitted for this work is expressive discourse, or what Lewis calls Poetic Language. In discussing the ways in which human beings share our experiences, sacred or otherwise (Lewis argues there is no distinctly religious language), Lewis writes,

Now it seems to me a mistake to think that our experience in general can be communicated by precise and literal language and that there is a special class of experiences (say, emotions) which cannot. The truth seems to me the opposite: there is a special region of experiences which can be communicated without Poetic language, namely, its ‘common measurable features,’ but most experiences cannot. To be incommunicable by Scientific language is, so far as I can judge, the normal state of experience. All of our sensuous experience is in this condition. (183)

From Lewis’ view, then, expressive discourse (or Poetic language in his terms) are forms best equipped to articulate the sacred.

Related to the concept of expressive discourse is the degree of emotional, intellectual, and volitional processing that has taken place at the point of composition, utterance, or design. By this, I mean (and I’m still trying to work this out), the extent to which the rhetor has attempted to codify or systematize an experience. When the sacred is manifest in discourse it is unlikely to be presented formulaically, or with “complete” understanding. By virtue of the fact that the experience communicated is extraordinary, awe inspiring, and mysterious, there is little room for an attitude of total confidence in the exactness of one’s words. Augustine’s remarks in Book I, Chapter VI of On Christian Doctrine regarding the complex of nature of conveying the sacred through language, speaks to this point:

Have we spoken or announced anything worthy of God? Rather I feel that I have done nothing but wish to speak: if I have spoken, I have not said what I wish to say. Whence do I know this, except because God is ineffable? If I said what were ineffable, it would not be said. And for this reason God should not be said to be ineffable, for when this is said something is said. And a contradiction in terms is created, since if that is ineffable which cannot be spoken, then that is not ineffable which can be called ineffable. The contradiction is to be passed over in silence rather than resolved verbally. For God, although nothing worthy may be spoken of Him, has accepted the tribute of the human voice and wished us to take joy in praising Him with our words. In this way he is called Deus. Although he is not recognized in the noise of those two syllables, all those who know the Latin language, when this sound reaches their ears, are moved to think of a certain most excellent immortal nature. (11)

By thinking about sacred discourse in terms of Rosenfield’s and Perelman’s notions of epideictic rhetoric, Kinneavy’s and Lewis’ understandings of expressive discourse/Poetic Language, and Augustine’s comments above, we can imagine forms such as prophecy, worship, prayer, testimony, parables, mystical accounts, speaking in tongues, personal writing, nature writing, travel writing, and some kinds of preaching possessing the qualities described here.

While I certainly do not see the sacred and the religious as mutually exclusive, to my mind they are in some respects different. As I noted above, I view the religious as an effort to theorize the sacred. For this reason, religious discourse is likely to take the form of deliberative rhetoric, share the qualities of persuasive discourse, and exist in a later state in the rhetor’s mind, heart, and will. Unlike sacred discourse, religious discourse does not simply attempt to set forth what is excellent or best in experience; it goes a step further by attempting to systematize that experience so that it can be taught, re-enacted, re-visited, embodied, and passed on to other human beings. Religious discourse is a result of the codification of experiences deemed worth recording and teaching. Religious discourse attempts to deliberately urge specific kinds of responses (e.g., obedience, confession, faith, silence). It shares sets of beliefs, practices, and values that bind particular groups of people together in an effort to forge identification with whomever is present. It intends to persuade hearers of its goodness, worth, and truth. It aims for commitment. Thus, in these ways, I see religious discourse as sharing character of deliberative rhetoric and the aims of persuasive discourse.

In terms of the degree of emotional, intellectual, and volitional processing that has taken place at the point of its composition, utterance, or design, religious discourse, it seems, exists in a later state in the rhetor’s mind, heart, and will, because its commonplaces are more readily available, its terms are more frequently articulated, and its ideas are more often thought to be understood than in the case of sacred rhetoric. Though the commonplaces, terms, and ideas may not stem from the rhetor’s experiences, he or she will feel they are familiar because of the frequency with which they are encountered. Because a relatively consistent body of ideas is communicated over and over again, he or she is likely to be more confident in his or her understanding of them. When there are sacred texts to study, ancient rituals to re-enact, and longstanding theological discussions to contemplate, there are more opportunities to process the experiences made available by religious discourse. This range of activity is apt to create a greater sense of confidence in the rhetor who is communicating the religious. In the case of the religious, the rhetor has symbols to return to again and again. Where the sacred is concerned, however, there are often no such opportunities. Religious discourse could certainly take a number of the forms mentioned above; however, the kinds of discourse that are more often going to fit neatly under this heading, include theological arguments, church creeds, apologetic texts, conversion narratives, and most sermons.

I look forward to meeting all of you on Friday. My examples of sacred discourse and religious discourse are attached, and below are the explanations of why I choose the excerpts I did.

2. Identify discourse related to the sacred or religious that you find particularly rich for rhetorical analysis. Send a text or some "shard" representing that discourse. Please include or attach (if graphic, sound, or video-based) an explanation of why you selected the particular discourse. If your file is too large to attach, please send a weblink to it.

My dissertation project, “Archiving the Sacred: An Exploration of Austin Phelps’s Nineteenth-Century Rhetoric and Pedagogy,” examines the rhetorical theory, writing pedagogy, and pulpit oratory of Austin Phelps, an accomplished nineteenth-century preacher and professor of sacred rhetoric at Andover Theological Seminary. One of the central aims of this archival project is to add another dimension to our field’s understanding of the terms “sacred rhetoric” and “religious rhetoric” via rhetorical analyses of Phelps’s published sermons and preaching manuals. An examination of Phelps’s notion of sacred rhetoric is significant not only because it offers a more complete understanding of the his rhetorical theory, but also because it has the potential to provide clues that could help us define more clearly what it is we are talking about when we use terms such as sacred rhetoric or religious discourse. A few questions guiding my thinking in this realm of exploration are: (1) What might we infer about nineteenth-century sacred rhetoric from Phelps’s practice as a pulpit orator and instruction on the subject of preaching? (2) What does rhetorical education that seeks to prepare students to articulate their religious commitments look like? (3) In what ways might Phelps’s efforts to prepare his students to share their religious commitments inform our pedagogies? (4) What might Phelps’s theory of sacred rhetoric add to our understanding of invention? (5) What constitutes invention in the realm of sacred rhetoric? I’ve included an excerpt from a collection of Phelps’s sermons on prayer, The Still Hour, to analyze together, because I am interested to see how the class responds to this example of sacred discourse. I am in the beginning stages of this chapter of my dissertation, and it will be really helpful to think through this analysis with other experienced rhetoricians and compositionists.

For my examples of religious discourse, I have included excerpts from a Christian student’s persuasive research paper and personal narrative that I received in an Honors First-Year Writing course this spring. I am using these papers, along with his analysis essay, in an article that I am writing for an edited collection on the integration of faith and English studies. In part of this article, I am exploring a range of possible responses to this Christian student's argument paper and faith-based narrative, and I am hoping the class might help me think through responses that might allow this student to more effectively draw upon his “religious faith to inspire and nurture effective rhetorical practice” (Vander lei 3). My questions, thus, are: What is this student doing well? Where do his essays fall apart? Why? In providing suggestions for revision, what guidance would you offer this student? What might writing instruction that responsibly aims to prepare students to articulate their religious commitments look like? What are your thoughts on teaching people to write well toward aims that you may be opposed to?

Works Cited

Augustine. On Christian Doctrine Trans. D. W. Robertson. New York: Library of Liberal Arts, 1958.

Kinneavy, James. “The Basic Aims of Discourse.” Cross-Talk in Comp Theory: A Reader. 2^nd ed. Ed. Victor Villanueva. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2003. 129-40.

Perelman, Chaim. The Realm of Rhetoric. Trans. William Kluback. Notre Dame, IN: U

of Notre Dame, 1982.

Prelli, Lawrence J. “Rhetorics of Display: An Introduction.” Rhetorics of Display. Ed. Lawrence J.

Prelli. Columbia, SC: U of South Carolina P, 2006. 1-38.

Rosenfield, Lawrence W. “The Practical Celebration of Epideictic.” Rhetoric in

Transition: Studies in the Nature and Uses of Rhetoric. Ed. Eugene E. White. University Park and London: Penn State U P, 1980. 131-55.

Vander lei and Bonnie Lenore Kyburz. Ed. Negotiating Religious Faith in the

Composition Classroom. Portsmouth: Boyton/Cook/Heinemann, 2005.