A Time to Laugh

“He saved Daniel from the power of the lions.”

Peace to you! Abundant peace!
I decree that Daniel’s God shall be worshiped and feared in all parts of my kingdom.
He is the living God, world without end. His kingdom never falls.
His rule continues eternally.
He is a savior and rescuer.
He performs astonishing miracles in heaven and on earth.
He saved Daniel from the power of the lions.

King Darius’ Decree.

We continued our theme of men of valor with our playing today. We’ve done David, Jonah, and Rach, Shach, and Benny. Today was Daniel. Get a load of our fiercesome lions there in their den (Daniel’s in the blue).

A triceratops, wholly mammoth, Superman (you can’t see him), a Halloween mask, a T-rex, an actual lion (puppet), a bear, an Elmo, a Heffalump, and a Cookie Monster. Oh, and a little guy in Scooby Doo jammies. Notice the snarls on their hungry lips. Pretty scary bunch.

I learned something though in re-reading this story several times today. Go see for yourself. There’s really very little in the story about Daniel or the lions or even the angel. The story is about very powerful human beings vs. an All-Powerful God. The king got it wrong when he caved into his toadies’ demands — really wrong — and he was beside himself. He couldn’t eat or sleep. He listened to the wrong people who cajoled his ego. And he seems to cross his fingers that God will take care of Daniel even as he follows the law — the written-in-stone cultural mandate that seems bigger than all of them.

The next morning everybody was still in one piece — lions, Daniel, and king. God’s angel shut the lion’s mouths. And I hear in the king’s final decree an honest humility that God was the true King of Kings, One Who doesn’t goof and send his honorable servants into the lions’ den.

I’ll never get over how God does not throw His children to the carnivores, but pagan human systems do. And even in this fallen world, He’s there to clamp those mouths shut for our safety. Just because.

Addendum: I’m bumping this up to remind myself of this story right now.

“The Lord God Himself rejoices over you in song.”

Sing aloud, O daughter of Zion; shout, O Israel!  Rejoice and exult with all your heart, O daughter of Jerusalem!  The Lord has taken away the judgments against you; he has cleared away your enemies.  The King of Israel, the Lord, is in your midst; you shall never again fear evil.  On that day it shall be said to Jerusalem: “Fear not, O Zion; let not your hands grow weak.  The Lord your God is in your midst, a mighty one who will save; he will rejoice over you with gladness; he will quiet you by his love; he will exult over you with loud singing.

Zephaniah 3:14-17

God always brings this specific passage to me during times of much weeping. And He’s done it again. Amen!

The Adhominem Defense

There’s, of course, a potential theory being built in all this although I can’t imagine its final shape. One of my favorite criticism anthologies from my grad years was Nothstine, Blair, and Copeland that dared to show the behind-the-scenes machinations of a successful published article.

Ideas surrounding liminal rhetoric — those who speak on the borders of a culture — have always intrigued me. Pied Pipers, prophets, cultural surgeons, casuistic stretchers, comedians – so many pictures for that person. And, of course, my suitor metaphor. <shrug>

But most critics have little experience with the insider/outsider rhetorics. And I do know them firsthand. So I’m going to take little notes that, if past experience proves accurate, will develop into a larger, more public offering. Maybe you have some suggestions you see in all this too. :) This inbetween my silly youtube stuff and crafting pics.

One trope that keeps popping up is what my brother chuckled about last night and named “the adhominem defense.” The adhominem fallacy, of course, is when you attack the person instead of the ideas:

Don’t believe him when he talks about his illegal immigration policy. He’s divorced!

The problem is that the retort is a distraction from the issues at hand. Wiki points out that it’s the converse of an appeal to authority, both as fallacious as the other. The attacker is trying to reform the discussion into the indefensible, private matters and take the upperhand in the process. It’s an argumentative sucker punch.

The adhominem defense doesn’t fit any boxing metaphor (king hit, rabbit punch, and feint don’t fit) because the initiator of the conversation didn’t know they were fighting at all. It’s a sort of tuo quoque, but more specific and passive-aggressive. Here are some examples:

• “Excuse me. You left your wallet here at the register.”
  “What are you saying? That I’m stupid?”
• “Sir, last class period you said that we should keep the last five rows vacant.”
  “Are you calling me a liar?”
• “I have some concerns that I’d like to discuss with you.”
  “Why didn’t you tell me this before?”
• “When Lincoln spoke to farmers in a rural Midwest drawl, he was only slipping into the speech he had been brought up with.  It by no means meant that all reasoning would stop.  Middling style eased social mobility.  They allowed one to speak in public without having to master the gentry’s tone.”
  “How do you know? Did you ask him?”

In hearing a perfectly appropriate suggestion, reminder, or conclusion, the listener reads it as a personal attack, assumes the worst possible intent, and lashes out. The initiator is struck silent — either stunned at the tantrum being thrown (”Dear me, lady, I was just trying to give you your wallet!”) or  pitched head-first into introspective searching (”Huh? Why do I need to ask Lincoln about my academic conclusions about his words? Did I miss that day in Rhet Crit?”).

And the discussion ends. The wallet gets left behind or the Lincoln observation lies fallow. It’s a lose-lose situation really.

What it comes down to, I think, is reading everything as agon. No, that’s not it either. It’s more than a contest or a debate. It’s a war. It’s reading everyone as the enemy. It’s yelling at the dog who won’t pee. It’s continuous line-drawing in the sand just daring for someone to cross you, even if it’s just a stumble over a pebble. It’s worse than run-of-the-mill tragedy — it’s pushing everyone over the edge that comes near you, even your allies and yourself.

Oh . . . and Happy Anniversary, m’dears! It’s been quite a year.

Technorati Tags: rhetorical criticism, scholarship, agon, Kenneth Burke, Tragedy, Comedy, Creative Casuistry, war rhetoric, fallacies 

The Endorsement: A Shift in Style for Separatist Rhetoric

I don’t really do political stuff around here. But this issue intersects with so many other interests that I can’t resist.

So the separatist endorsed the other separatist. Why? To “[beat] Hillary.” This is a shift in past political involvement for these sectarians — a dramatic shift.

First of all, let’s get the preliminary facts out of the way. BJU or BJIII or their very politically-involved Dean of the COAS has never officially endorsed a candidate. If the school were a typical tax exempt organization, this would be illegal (See recent brouhahas at another separatist school a few miles to the West.). But since BJU is the only fully-taxed university in the country, they don’t fit within those expected boundaries. After gaining accreditation from TRACS and Title IV Federal Student aid, BJU needs to work harder at talking more like an educational instituation rather than less.

Now, let’s get to the fun rhetorical criticism part.

“This is all about beating Hillary,” Jones said. “And I just believe that this man has the credentials both personally and ideologically in terms of his view about what American government should be to best represent the rank and file of conservative Americans.

“If it turns out to be Guiliani and Hillary, we’ve got two pro-choice candidates, and that would be a disaster.”

Asked whether Romney’s religion was a stumbling block for him, Jones replied, “What is the alternative, Hillary’s lack of religion or an erroneous religion?

“As a Christian I am completely opposed to the doctrines of Mormonism,” he said. “But I’m not voting for a preacher. I’m voting for a president. It boils down to who can best represent conservative American beliefs, not religious beliefs.” . . .

Jones, who said he has met with Romney several times over the past few months, said he is sticking to his belief that the Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints isn’t a Christian denomination, but he believes Romney’s character is above reproach.

“He’s a very presidential guy. He has a loving family. He has, as far as I can tell, no scandal connected with his life. I can’t say that about all of the candidates unfortunately,” Jones said.

“I’d be very concerned if he tried to make it appear in any of his statements that Mormonism is a Christian denomination of some sort. It isn’t. There’s a theological gulf that can’t be bridged,” Jones said.

“But as long as he says I am what I am and you are what you are and doesn’t try to make it appear that we believe the same things, I can respect the difference.”

Several new things are going on here. A pentadic analysis would look like this:

Agent: BJIII, Romney, Bob Taylor
   Counteragents: Guiliani, “Hillary,” Democrats
Act: Aligning politically
Agency: Endorsement
Scene: “rank and file of conservative Americans” who need to be represented
Purpose: To foil the “liberals,” to “beat Hillary”

Making his listeners (BJU alumni, state-wide Republicans) the scene (a thing to be acted upon) rather than the (co-)agent (persons who act), I believe, is exactly why Jones’ endorsement is failing. No one wants to be the passive receiver of any action, political or otherwise. By rising up and speaking out, his audience rejects Jones’ drama.

His purpose of “beating Hillary” seems far from the chivalrous talk I’ve heard from him before. While it’s a common patriarchal trope to slight a woman by flippantly using her first name (he uses “Guiliani” not “Rudy”), Jones is most often (and should be) a gentleman. How did his father used to joke? “I don’t hold the door open for you because you’re a lady. I hold the door open for you because I’m a gentleman.” Good advice and good politics.

I’m most intrigued by his attraction to Romney’s image as a clean-cut guy. Most Mormons are well-scrubbed, scandal-free family men. So then, it’s not just the issue of abortion or the potential success at “beating Hillary” that appeals to Jones. It’s image (i.e. “character”). And it’s a nearly identical image that BJU tries to cultivate before its own audience. I would argue that this is the real deal behind the endorsement. Politics makes for strange bedfellows.

Notice all the dichotomies in Jones’ statement: “Hillary” v. everyone, liberals v. conservatives, pro-choice v. pro-life, lack of religion v. erroneous (but still existant) religion, Christians v. Mormons, conservative America v. conservative religion, preacher v. president, scandal-free v. potentially scandalous candidate. In presenting his view of the political landscape, Jones attempts to shape his audience’s view: there are a set of clear either-ors, and you are either with him or against him.

With previous forays into the political arena, Jones (and his father) used deliberately provocative and indcendiary rhetoric (previously calling the LDS church a “cult,” for instance) when talking with “outsiders” or arcane but “romantic” rhetoric when talking with “insiders” (or members of the “BJU Family”). This seems like an attempt at deliberative rhetoric (what Robert Hariman would call the “republican style”): it’s pragmatic (they must “beat Hillary”), it’s compromising (ignore religion; this is politics), and it’s familiar (using the political language of endorsements). He’s not talking like a fundamentalist. He’s not talking like a preacher. He’s not talking like an educator. He’s talking like a politico.

And it doesn’t suit him. This is not playing well in Peoria . . . er, Greenville where national pundits have assumed it would work. So as a rhetorical critic, my prescription would be for BJU to drop the deliberative stuff. You can’t do it and be a fundamentalist too. Go back to the romantic style. You’re good at it, and it’s mysterious enough to appeal to all your audiences.

Addendum: BJU’s recent clarification that this endorsement is “personal” and not corporate changes little in the analysis. This critic does chuckle, however, because just like Kenneth Burke described Protestantism as having a splintering effect, so these sectarians seem to be separating from themselves.

Technorati Tags: Campaign 2008, Bob Jones University, Romancing the Difference, Rhetorical Criticism, Mitt Romney, Bob Jones, Bob Taylor, Kenneth Burke, pentadic analysis, Robert Hariman, political styles