I’ve been given the middle finger a number of times in my life. Oddly enough, it’s rarely been by any of my students (or at least not to my face). The majority of times have been while I’ve been driving when someone else on the road disagrees with a driving decision that I’ve made. When my son was 4, a man in another car gave me the middle finger within sight of both of us, and my son interpreted the gesture to me by saying, “Daddy, he’s saying that you should only go one way on this road.” Indeed, that other driver wanted me to go one way, although I’m not quite sure that where he wanted me to go was where I was driving to. Either way, these fingers haven’t really altered my behavior or outlook much in life.
The other day, I watched with great curiosity as a middle-aged woman quickly zipped into a parking spot, cutting off another man just as he was about to enter from the other direction. He blared his horn at her and took another spot close by. As they emerged from their respective cars, they both began speaking at the same time, she with an apology (which would indicate that she knew she was at fault), and he with accusation about how dangerous her maneuver was, followed by a vulgar name for her. At that point, she changed from being sorry to being offended, as she told him that he had no right to call her that. In that moment, the fault then went from her to him, as now he was wrong for calling her that name. He yelled at her again, now adding insults about the way she looked, but that addition only made his situation worse, because now anyone around him was offended by the way he was treating this woman.
When a problem arises where we are angry or offended, there are three types of argument approaches we can take: pathos, logos, and ethos. Pathos is when we respond using our feelings in an attempt to sway the other party, logos is when logic is used to persuade, and ethos is when reputation is referred to when trying to convince. The topic of argument and people involved usually dictate the approach. This gentleman driver clearly responded using pathos, showing how angry he was, whereas a logos approach would have been more effective. Had he avoided calling her anything inappropriate in his anger and instead used a logos approach by explaining the dangers of her driving, he might have curbed her future driving behavior, but now she was just dismissing him as just a jerk.
Christ was acutely aware of how to approach people in argument, choosing the most effective method to achieve the means He desired. Never one to act without thought, He expressed pathos when he kicked the money changers out of the temple, as had He tried to convince them to leave through logic or reputation (sharing that He was the son of God), He wouldn’t have achieved His desired outcome. His Sermon on the Mount relied on logos, as He knew that He was talking to a crowd that already thought of Him as a great teacher, so He didn’t need an ethos approach, and these people valued reason and logic, so pathos would have undercut His purpose.
In Luke 11, Christ is invited to eat with the Pharisees and the lawmakers, and after assessing the situation and His audience, He argues with the Pharisees first, by using an ethos argument to sway the entire group. Of all those at the table, He would have known that the Pharisees considered themselves the most strict and law-abiding of everyone, so Christ attacked their reputation: “The Pharisee was astonished when he saw that Jesus did not first wash his hands before the meal. But the Lord said to him, ‘Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness’” (38-9). By showing the others that the Pharisees were only outwardly sinless, they would question the Pharisees’ authority and listen more closely to Christ’s teachings. Through Christ’s shrewd choice of argument approaches, He achieved His purpose of having the others question the established authority.
When we find ourselves locked in argument, our go-to choice is often pathos, as we want to express our emotions. However, we need to take a minute and look towards the outcome of the argument: what do we want accomplished? When we identify our goal, we can then analyze our audience and see what approach works best to achieve that goal. Too often, like the man in the parking lot, we get caught up in the moment and say things we don’t mean, and once they are out, we find that we’ve shot ourselves in the foot through our own efforts and our argument is null. Let’s learn to reflect and act upon that reflection instead of thoughtlessly reacting to our environment. Take the time to take a step back and see how to best approach the moment, and often, your Christ-like reflection and approach will not only bring you the end you need but also bring peace into the situation. Amen.