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

by Benjamin Sherick | Xchanges 11.2

Conclusion

The project summarized herein sought to understand to what extent the ability to persuade relies on ethos as an aspect of identification. I found that Driscoll was able to construct positive intrinsic ethos through displays of virtue, goodwill, and knowledge. However, Driscoll’s negative extrinsic ethos had the potential to overshadow his intrinsic ethos, disrupting identification and persuasion.

Driscoll is a compelling figure. He is clearly comfortable in the pulpit and able to demonstrate the elements of intrinsic ethos in a number of ways. He positions himself as a defender of truth, implying virtue. He clearly knows his topic, as evidenced through his extensive use of the Bible. His purpose, as explained at the conclusion of his sermon, is to benefit his congregation. However, Driscoll is not a perfect rhetor. In particular, his poorly thought-out jokes may indicate a lack of sensitivity and discernment.

Extrinsic ethos, though not a pronounced factor, did subtly shape responses to the rhetorical act. Driscoll’s intrinsic ethos and extrinsic ethos are in conflict. This leads to the conclusion that rhetors must be mindful of their reputation. It may not be enough to simply craft great intrinsic ethos. Extrinsic ethos must be carefully maintained as well.

A final unexpected finding was that accurate content was more likely to enable identification than good ethos. Many participants expressed that bad theology would have been more detrimental than bad ethos. In sum, reputation and ethos must be carefully considered by a rhetor, but perhaps no more than any other aspect of the rhetorical process. Reputation serves to strengthen one’s argument, without necessarily undermining it — but that danger still exists. It is critical that rhetors pay attention to their overall ethos, both intrinsic and extrinsic.