I was in church on Sunday listening to a sermon being given by of the pastors. This week the sermon was titled, “Let’s Face it, Jesus came to serve.” This lesson was taken from Mark 10: 32-45. The speaker was trying to get the point across that Jesus did not come to be served, but to serve us and show God’s love to us.
Focusing on Ethos, the speaker used his computer instead of a bible or any papers to teach. His appearance was okay, but could have been more professional for the occasion. He interacted with the audience quite often and used humor to keep people interested. He also referenced many different movies many times, but most people did not seem to know what he was trying to refer to. Referring to logos, he used much scripture in the beginning but none at the middle or end of the sermon. He did use one quote that related to the sermon very well. For Pathos, he used many hand motions and gestures, kept eye contact, and asked questions to think about.
The argument was clear for the first part of the sermon, he stayed on topic and used many good arguments and verses to support the sermon. However, during the second half of the sermon did not make any sense. He seemed to derail from the main point he was trying to get across. He used a completely different story that did not seem to fit what the lesson was on, and there were also no verses used at all and only one quote from an author at the very end.
I did not find their rhetoric technic very persuasive in the way that he did not keep everything very organized in his sermon. He only read for the first half of the sermon and then started to talk at the end of the sermon and voice his own opinions. He also had no real que into the sermon, it was rushed and jumped into very quickly. However, at the end of the lesson, he did have a nice closing including a prayer and charging using questions to do so.
Focusing on Ethos, the speaker used his computer instead of a bible or any papers to teach. His appearance was okay, but could have been more professional for the occasion. He interacted with the audience quite often and used humor to keep people interested. He also referenced many different movies many times, but most people did not seem to know what he was trying to refer to. Referring to logos, he used much scripture in the beginning but none at the middle or end of the sermon. He did use one quote that related to the sermon very well. For Pathos, he used many hand motions and gestures, kept eye contact, and asked questions to think about.
The argument was clear for the first part of the sermon, he stayed on topic and used many good arguments and verses to support the sermon. However, during the second half of the sermon did not make any sense. He seemed to derail from the main point he was trying to get across. He used a completely different story that did not seem to fit what the lesson was on, and there were also no verses used at all and only one quote from an author at the very end.
I did not find their rhetoric technic very persuasive in the way that he did not keep everything very organized in his sermon. He only read for the first half of the sermon and then started to talk at the end of the sermon and voice his own opinions. He also had no real que into the sermon, it was rushed and jumped into very quickly. However, at the end of the lesson, he did have a nice closing including a prayer and charging using questions to do so.
I would agree that a speaker must keep the audience involved because if you lose them at all during the speech then you may never get them back. You have to relate to the audience so you keep there attention.
ReplyDelete