Interview with Joe Carter of “How to Argue Like Jesus”

Joe Carter, co-author of “How to Argue Like Jesus,” was kind enough to answer some questions for me about his new book. Earlier this month, I wrote about the fact that I was reading it and gave it a great review. Well, now I’ve finished the book and let me just say that it did not disappoint. Some of you were convinced already to buy the book when I first wrote about it, and I hope others of you will consider picking it up. It’s a valuable read and resource for anyone who writes, works in politics or leads in the business or religious spheres in any way.

Without further adieu, I give you the wisdom of Joe Carter.

Why did you decide to write this book? What was the most challenging part of the process?

A few years ago I wrote a series of blog posts on Jesus’ use of logic and reasoning based on philosopher Dallas Williard’s article “Jesus the Logician.” I wanted to read more about Jesus’ use of rhetoric, but was surprised to find there were very few resources that covered that topic. My co-author, John Coleman, and I figured that because no one else was writing about it, we’d take a shot at it ourselves.

The hardest part of the book was deciding what to leave out. We wanted to write a book for busy people so we needed to keep it short (under 200 pages). But there were such an abundance of riches in Jesus’ examples that it made it difficult to choose only a few. We’re hoping that the book will be a starting point for people to do their own exploration of Jesus use of rhetoric.

While your book is largely a look at Christ the Communicator, you point out that he spent 90 percent of his life doing manual labor. I’ve also heard time and time again that the best politicians are people who are good at something else–who become an industry expert of some sort–before they decide to take up public service via politics. What do you think writers and speakers of all levels have to gain by developing skills in an outside industry?

I would narrow that down to certain classes of work or occupations that require two things: emphatic listening and a mastery of interrelated skills. Carpentry—the trade of Jesus before he began his ministry—is a prime example. To become skilled at carpentry requires being able to become proficient in a set of interrelated skills, tasks, and abilities (manual dexterity with hammers and saws, an eye for numbers and measurements, etc.). But it also requires, at least at the level of a craftsman, the capability to listen for the deep needs of the person for whom the work is being done. What people want from a carpenter is not merely functional (e.g., a chair, table, house) but aesthetic and personal.

Similarly, the best politicians are those that can combine the interelated skills of rhetoric with the ability to truly understand and listen for an audience’s or constituency’s needs.

In the chapter about pathos, a rhetorician’s appeal to emotions, you emphasize the importance of identifying a new concept as part of an existing set of shared values. Which modern-day politicians or public figures do this well? Can you share any recent examples of this technique being abused or otherwise used in a misleading or dishonest way?

The most obvious example is Sarah Palin. Even before she gave her first national speech at the Republican National Convention, she was being viewed as “one of us” by large segments of the population. By looking at her lifestyle and her past actions, they were able to deduce that she shared their values—and rallied around her because of that connection.

To find examples of it used in a misleading or dishonest way, we simply have to look for politicians who are labeled as “hyprocrites.” Often the politicians are not being hypocritical—at least not in the technical sense—but have merely contradicted by their actions the values they claim to share with their constituency. Louisiana Senator David Vitter—a man who solicited prostitutes while championing “family values”—is a recent example.

What does Jesus’ use of pathos say about the importance of human emotion?

Since I believe that Jesus is the creator of the universe and the creator of mankind, his use of pathos seems to show that emotions are not only incidental to who we are as humans but a intergral part. We should not be ashamed, therefore, to be moved by appeals to emotion. Nor should be assume that the use of pathos in persuasion is illegitimate or inferior to using reason and logic.

[Nerd alert!] As a former English major and a bit of a wordie myself, I enjoyed the parts of the book in which you dove into the most technical rhetorical terms. Which of the four forms of conduplicatio is your personal favorite: epizeuxis, ploce, anaphora or mesodiplosis?

My favorite would definitely be ploce. Not only is is simple to incorporate, its effect can be both subtle and powerful. For instance, Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech is 1650 words long, yet he uses the word “dream” only in the last half– eleven times in the space of 225 words. It’s only a small part of the overall speech but it’s the part that people still remember. That’s the effect ploce can have.

What advice would you give a young writer or public speaker who is intimidated by formal syllogisms, but looking to focus and sharpen their arguments?

Master the enthymeme. Formal syllogisms are great if you want to convince a philosophy professor. But the most useful form of logical persuasion is to use the enthymeme. Indeed, we use that form all the time without thinking about it; it comes naturally to us. If we take the time to actually craft them, though, we can instantly become more persuasive.

A recent and famous instance of a false dilemma–a type of logical fallacy–is when President George W. Bush claimed that nations were “either with us or against us” in the war against terrorism in the fall of 2001. Why is this logical error so common? What’s a better alternative for writers and speakers?

False dilemmas are common because we tend to like choices that are binary: yes/no, right/wrong, black/white. Because it’s so easy to take a strong stand when there are only two options, we have a tendency to fall back on this mode of thinking when we care deeply about the topic under discussion. Unfortunately, it’s also easy for those who disagree with us to point out the fallacy: they simply have to posit a third plausible option. Jesus did this with the Pharisees so that it makes you wonder why they didn’t catch on sooner often (one example that is recorded in all the Synoptic Gospels is found in Matthew 22:23-34; Mark 12:18-27; and Luke 20:27-40).

In what ways could the Christian community benefit from a deeper understanding of the importance of logic in human communication?

God created us to think logically; it’s the way our brains are designed. We can’t effectively study God’s word or apply his truth without the use of reason or logic. Yet we have a tendency to downplay logic when we communicate to others. Our ability to open people’s minds to the truths of Scripture would be greatly enhanced if we had a better grasp of how to argue logically.

Fortunately, we are not the only one’s that are illogical. Almost everyone who argues against Chrisitanity commits fallacies in their reasoning (most often violating the law of non-contradiction). The use of logic can be a powerful apologetic tool in uncovering the flaws in non-Christian worldviews and opening their minds to the truth of the Gospel.

What is the most effective way for a writer or speaker to establish his credibility? How can he ensure he is not merely boasting?

Obviously, the most effective way to establish credibility is to consistently prove to be a credible person. There are no shortcuts to building a reputation for integrity. But once your credibility is established, the best way to convey it is by the use of character references—having someone who is considered credible vouch for your credibility. The techique is simple and old-fashioned but there is none more effective.

Even Jesus used it when he started his ministry. When we read the Gospels now we recognize that Jesus is the “hero” of the story. But at the time John the Baptist was the bigger star, the most respected man in Palestine. For John to say that Jesus was the better man would have been an extraordinary character reference.

Jesus was a master of the metaphor. How might someone who isn’t as poetic by nature attempt to emulate that effective use of image and comparison?

Creating fresh metaphors can be surprisingly easy, even for those of us who don’t have the poet’s skill with words. It helps to understand that a metaphor consists of a source domain and a target domain. For example, in the metaphor “Life is a highway” the target domain (the part we are trying to understand) is “life” while the source domain (the part which we draw upon from our own experience) is “highway.” Because we understand not only what a highway is (a manmade path) but also what occurs on it (travel, adventure, discovery, etc.) we are able to create a conceptual map of the source-target pairing in a way that increases our understanding of the target. [Note: Not all metaphors take the form of similies (i.e., use “like” or “as).]

Jesus spent his time with people who were familiar with agricultural, husbandry, fishing, etc., so he constructed metaphors that used terms from those areas (salt, seeds, plowing) that would connect with his audience (“Follow me, and I will make you become fishers of men.”). We can do the same by taking concepts that are familiar to modern audiences (i.e., technology, media, pop culture) and use them to create metaphors surprise our audience. Consider for example the use of a term that combines two unrelated areas–hazardous-materials and finance—in a metaphor that has become ubiquitous during the current financial crisis: toxic asset. The image we get is a financial instrument that no one wants to touch, that is so grimy and dangerous that it has to be disposed of by special government experts (presumably wearing Brooks Brothers biohazard suits).

What is the difference between training leaders and training followers? How can understanding this help any organization or team of people communicate their message better, be they religious, political, professional or any other type of group?

The key distinction between leaders and followers, from a communications standpoint, is that leaders have the skills and ability to spread the message on their own. They have a clear, complete understanding of the message and can communicate it to others. Followers, in constrast, can use “talking points” and other tools but are ill equipped to defend and translate the core message on their own.

The most effective organizations are the ones whose message can be spread by numerous people, rather than merely by the CEO or the staff in the communications department. Steve Jobs is a supurb communicator but if he was the only one spreading the message about Apple the company would have gone bankrupt decades ago. Apple has managed to create its own user-leaders who evangelize others on behalf of their products. If you use an Apple product it’s likely because someone other than an Apple employee (i.e., a friend, a tech blogger) convinced you to try it. Apple sets the message and depends on their brand’s advocates to spread it for them.

“How to Argue Like Jesus” includes two case studies: Robert F. Kennedy’s speech on the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and the 1991 film “Other People’s Money.” Amidst the entire histories of oral tradition and the written word, why did you select these two in particular?

Initially we planned to include a half-dozen case studies, including St. Paul’s Letter to the Romans and speeches by Martin Luther King and Ronald Reagan. We realized after finishing the first draft that would be overkill since the purpose of the case studies is simply to provide a model for people to analyze speeches on their own.

I love the one from “Other People’s Money” because it illustrates so many of the techniques we talk about in the book. The Kennedy speech was included because it was an example of a short speech that really isn’t all that impressive—and yet, at the time, it was incredibly powerful. We wanted to show that rhetoric doesn’t have to be limited to finely-crafted oratory in order to be effective.

I can’t thank Joe Carter enough for his time. Click here if you’d like purchase How to Argue Like Jesus.

Popularity: 4% [?]

Related posts:

1. Reading: How to Argue Like Jesus
2. Interview with Charles Murray, Author of “Real Education”
3. Interview with Phil Valentine

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

This entry was posted on Thursday, March 26th, 2009 at 12:24 pm and is filed under Faith and Family, New and Old Media. The entry is tagged under You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.