“The Ethos of Mark Driscoll: A Summary of an Undergraduate Thesis”

by Benjamin Sherick | Xchanges 11.2

Analysis Cont.

Extrinsic Ethos as a Factor

While Driscoll accumulates positive intrinsic ethos in his sermon, his extrinsic ethos may overshadow and prohibit identification and persuasion. Interesting differences emerged between the two experimental groups in their responses to the interview questions.

Respondents in Group 1, with little to no knowledge of Driscoll’s reputation, reported being only moderately affected by his reputation. They described Driscoll in generally favourable terms — repeatedly describing him as passionate, intense, and convicted. Kyle commented, “He’s a very passionate follower of Christ; he cares a lot about what he believes.” In these instances, passion is equated with devotion, which endeared Driscoll to the respondents.

Overall, Group 1 respondents reported some level of identification with Driscoll. Emily admitted that she identified with Driscoll due to shared beliefs about the Bible’s truth. Kyle admitted that, although it was hard to identify with someone he didn’t know much about, he did relate to Driscoll on the basis of shared faith. Without knowledge of Driscoll’s reputation, the audience based their interpretation of Driscoll on the sermon alone — enabling identification more easily based on his effective intrinsic ethos.

Group 2 was far more affected by Driscoll’s reputation. Group 2 respondents tended to describe Driscoll more negatively. Rudy described Driscoll as confident to the point of brashness. Scott described Driscoll as angry, intimidating, aggressive, and controlling. Scott went so far as to describe Driscoll as “a shitty dude” and said the articles had damaged Driscoll’s ethos: “It’s like if a man insulted me and then went to share his opinion, I’d have a hard time hearing his opinion.”

One unexpected finding arose in both groups. Regardless of their degree of knowledge about Driscoll, practically every participant acknowledged that Driscoll could not fully meet his or her expectations, yet was willing to give Driscoll the benefit of the doubt. Participants contrasted Driscoll with Jesus or acknowledged Driscoll was a flawed human. Emily stated, “It’s really hard because if you put your ideal pastor together, that person would never exist… The ideal pastor would be Jesus, which we can’t actually have.” Rudy found commonality: “He’s as flawed as the rest of us.”

Another unexpected finding was the role of logos in the identification and persuasion process. A number of participants expressed that it was the content of the sermon, and not the character of the speaker, that mattered most to them. Emily stated: “I was thinking, is what he’s saying true? And then if I agreed with it, then I’m like, yes, what he’s saying is true, so you keep listening.”