Category Archives: Communication

“God Told Me” — A Rhetorical Device?

As Christians, much of our rationale and justification for decision-making is based on our faith. We attempt to live in a way that follows the principles of scripture and the prompting of the Holy Spirit. However, in walking out these decisions we cannot disregard the role that our rhetorical choices play. Do the rhetorical devices that we use in our conversations help us work toward discovering truth, or do they function as a defense for conclusions to which we have already committed ourselves? Furthermore, do such rhetorical devices sometimes act as weapons, utilized to “win” an argument or a debate?

Let’s examine one particular rhetorical device that is commonly used, and that is the phrase “God told me” (or some variation of it). This phrase often functions (wittingly or unwittingly) as either a trump card or a conversation-ender. For example, when discussing with a friend the actions she should take in a certain moral dilemma, many pieces of information may need to be weighed. The facts of the circumstances would be considered; actions and motives may be examined; advice from Scripture may be applicable; the prompting of the Holy Spirit would be discussed; and common-sense observations may also factor in. Perhaps the two of you may have differences of opinion and perspective on the situation, which may incur some disagreement. At that point, what happens when she announces her conclusion to be based on the fact that “God told her it was right”?

A trump card has just been played. Where can the conversation go from here? Maybe God did tell her that; maybe he didn’t. Hopefully you have enough humility to realized that you have no way of objectively knowing if he did or did not. So how does a dialogue continue productively? Her use of this phrase has had rhetorical impact — ending the conversation. It doesn’t matter if this was her intent; it is the consequence of using language that functions in an ultimate and symbolic manner.

Theorist Kenneth Burke spent much of his work exploring the way language functions symbolically in our lives.  He has captured the essence of symbolic action well: “A symbol is a vessel of much more content than is disclosed by its “face value” as a label. Words may contain attitudes much more complex and subtle than could possibly be indicated in the efficient simplifications of a ‘practical’ dictionary.”1

The declaration of God speaking to someone — either audibly or through an impressed conscious thought — symbolizes much more than what appears at face value. On the surface we may surmise that someone has received an answer or found some divine clarity on a situation. However, when such a statement is employed in the context of a disagreement or difference of opinion there are many different messages being communicated with this symbolic language act. For one, such a phrase may communicate the end of a dialogue on the subject. There is a finality to such a phrase, communicating the idea that “God has spoken.” The only possible challenge to this statement would be the question, “How do you know it was God?” However, this is usually not a question that is up for consideration by someone choosing to employ this trump card in the first place. The individual has already determined it to be God’s voice; what she is now communicating by sharing her revelation is that further input is void.

I bring up this example not to nullify the concept of hearing God’s voice and being “led by the Spirit.” I bring it up to demonstrate how such statements often function in our Christian communities as rhetorical weapons that stifle dialogue about how we are to live out our faith. We are often not aware of the ways in which we use language symbolically to justify our own conclusions or win an argument. We often have to unlearn rhetorical habits that we have adopted and absorbed from the culture in which we have been raised.

________________________________

1. Kenneth Burke, Attitudes Toward History, 3rd ed. with a new afterword (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 329.

Vocation Rhetoric – Part 4: Men and Women in the Workplace

In closing this discussion on vocational rhetoric, I have some observations on gender equality in the workplace that I think relate to this discussion. I have argued that what is lacking in many Christian (specifically protestant) communities is a vocational paradigm. I think that more often than not Christians have identified themselves more by their occupational role in society, rather than by their vocational role as followers of Christ. I see much of the rhetoric to be occupation-centric.

This kind of paradigm has permeated Christian mindsets and rhetoric within the workplace for decades, but I don’t know that it was always obvious. Our rhetorical paradigms function subconsciously, because they become ingrained over time through ritualistic, habitual practices. I think the problematic nature of this rhetoric has only been exposed in recent decades, as gender equality has transformed the workforce and challenged paradigms of societal roles for men and women. While the terms “occupation” and “vocation” have been used synonymously for decades, it used to be that men were generally the ones in danger of mistaking the terms as interchangeable because they composed the workforce. Before the feminist movement, before women had the right to vote, before society accepted women working in the same occupations as men, women didn’t have to worry about confusing the two. They were traditionally supported (monetarily) by their husbands’ occupations. The meaningful work to which they devoted their lives — raising their children, caring for family and household needs, civic participation and volunteer work  — was all unpaid; they were considered occupation-less with the socio-economic system. Until relatively recent history, I would argue that women were in less danger than men of confusing meaningful or vocational work with monetary compensation.

As a woman, I am exceedingly glad that we have evolved as a society to recognize that women and men are equally capable within the workforce, and I hope for continued gender diversity and equality within the every sector of the workforce. However, as the workforce has continued to diversify, I am concerned that women have bought into the socially constructed  notion that occupation holds some sort of primary significance to, or is synonymous with, vocation. I had rather hoped that as more women entered the workforce they would bring with them their sense of what makes work meaningful and significant within society, which (I believe) is historically more balanced and vocation-centric than the modern perspective men have operated under in the previously male-dominated workforce.

I don’t think that it is too late for women to resist the pressure to conform and be the force that offers a deeply needed corrective to the occupation-centric narrative in American culture. We already see plenty examples of women demanding that their companies be more “family focused,” arguing that employees that do not have to sacrifice time with their families due to unfair work constraints are happier, more productive, and more loyal to their companies. We see women continuing to reject “mommy-wars” rhetoric that cycles in and out of the media and blogosphere from time to time. I think that intelligent, Christian women understand that the important discussion is not about whether a woman has a paying occupation; rather, it is about holistically approaching the work that we deem to be important in various areas of our lives from a vocational perspective. (On a side note, plenty of men operate under a vocational perspective and advocate for such a perspective; yet it is not the narrative that permeates our socio-economic culture or workforce.)

I believe that Christian men and women of this generation have an important role to play in our faith communities and secular culture. We need to recapture a deeply ingrained understanding of our vocation — for ourselves, for our children, and for the coming generations. Our children need to be approaching adulthood with a clear and vibrant understanding of their vocational call as Christ-followers. As I indicated earlier, a rhetorical paradigm shift like this takes place over time and through the purposeful construction of symbolic narratives that become second-nature. While our generation may not see the fruit of this paradigm shift, we are the ones who must construct the narratives that will birth a vocation-centric paradigm for future generations of Christ-followers.

Vocation Rhetoric – Part 3: Career Satisfaction vs. Satisfying Your Vocational Call

I came across a really helpful visual on Michael Hyatt’s blog today. His post this morning addressed the issue of job satisfaction, and he laid out an argument for why job satisfaction (for Christians and non-Christians) occurs at the intersection of three vital components: passion, competence and marketplace value. Here’s the visual he used in his post:

Hyatt (former Thomas Nelson Chairman and CEO, bestselling author, and leadership consultant) focusses his mission and his writing on helping individuals become successful leaders in their chosen occupations. From what I know and have observed from his writing, he seems to have a keen understanding of effective leadership within the marketplace.

I share his diagram here, not because I disagree with it or his principles, but because it helps to illustrate the distinction I have been arguing for between “occupation” and “vocation.” As Hyatt illustrates, “career satisfaction” (occupational fulfillment) requires one component that fulfilling a vocational call does not — marketplace value.  Sometimes our vocational callings as Christians may benefit the marketplace, but they certainly exist irrespective of the marketplace. Hopefully this visual helps clarify the distinction I have been getting at in earlier posts on vocation rhetoric (parts 1 & 2).

I have one more post planned for this series on vocation, and then we will move on. Here’s a teaser…the last part on vocation rhetoric has to do with gender diversity in the workplace and how the growing number of women in the marketplace have the opportunity to help shift our cultural focus from a occupation-centric paradigm to a vocation-centric one.