Generally, the study of rhetoric examines language used in persuasion. Corbett and Conners define rhetoric as “The art or the discipline that deals with the use of discourse, either spoken or written, to inform or persuade or motivate an audience.” In his classic work On Rhetoric, Aristotle explained, “rhetorical study, in its strict sense, is concerned with the modes of persuasion.” Rhetoric always has a purpose beyond information. Rhetoric is a compelling practical force directing an audience toward a particular end.
At times, a rhetorical situation can be contentious. That is, conflict often characterizes and accompanies a rhetorical speech act. An audience may respond negatively to attempted persuasion, but the conflict here examined is not the effect of persuasive attempts but the cause. Simply put, persuasive rhetoric is often necessary during an exceptionally contentious season. This type of rhetoric is polemic.
The primary objective of this paper is to establish a pastoral paradigm of polemic rhetoric by comparing Marcelo Dascal’s work on polemics to that of Arthur Schopenhauer and Richard Weaver. This comparative analysis will serve as a valuable rhetorical aid for modern pastoral writing, teaching, and preaching, particularly in the face of contentious circumstances.