The argument being argued is not an argument, which allows it to become the argument being argued in the argument that is not directly being argued….

     That’s about how I felt reading ROHS’s chapter on the Rhetoric of Theology in an attempt to help me understand the rhetoric of my own writing. I am revising a paper written for a sociology class that deals with the concepts of grace and law in the Christian faith and how these principles function on an individual and corporate level within Christianity. As in any work, rhetoric definitely comes into play. I have depended heavily on scripture as well as other religious scholar’s opinions in shaping my argument. My wording also makes the argument clear. The chapter in ROHS, however, did not help me further understand the rhetoric I am using, nor what type of rhetoric I should use. I think this is because the type of theology addressed in the chapter is different from the type of theology I wish to address in my paper. Klemm is examining academic theology, focusing on the argument about the existence of God, claiming that current theology deals with the metaphor of “God as the breaking-in of ‘otherness’ to human existence” (278).  This breaking in is argued to be achieved through “word-events” (292).      My paper, on the other hand, in no way deals with this topic, but rather is meant to be addressed to Christians (meaning, obviously, that this audience accepts the existence of God). Therefore, from what I have deduced from Klemm’s initial disclaimer, my paper is in the realms of what his essay is not—confessional theology. Klemm states that confessional theology “operates as citation and elaboration of religious principle.”  He goes on to say that this type of theology alienates those who do not find the “truth of the confession self-evident” (276). However, if the intended audience is those who do agree with these truths, than isn’t a certain level of alienation to expected and perhaps even desired?
     After looking further into the topic of confessional theology, I understand it to be theology that has to do with the confessions and creeds that have been generally accepted as agreeing with scripture—in short, the arguments and beliefs that are considered to build up the Church and are held to be aligned with scripture. In another place, however, a “confession” was described to be something that is intimate and private to the author (reference is made to Augustine’s Confessions). Again, in another article dealing with the issue of apartheid in South Africa, confessional theology is shown to be intertwined with, both shaping and being shaped by, politics. This article states that the confessions are not meant to be taken as final words, but rather are to be held as potentially “fallible,” more like an “until further notice” statement. (Confessional Theology).
     Though I still have a very limited understanding of what confessional theology actually is, I think my paper falls more so under this category rather than the type of theology discussed in ROHS’s chapter on theology. My paper deals with the institutional church’s departure from what I believe to be God’s intended purpose (as I will support with Scripture and other scholar’s arguments). The audience of my paper is meant to be the average American institutional church, meaning that my “confession” is directly tied to our culture in particular as well as the politics of the American church. I think that this focus could be presented more clearly in my paper.
     As far as a “private” confession (if this is indeed an important aspect of confessional theology), my paper contains none of these type confessions. The paper was originally written in a research paper type format. I could potentially add more personal examples to attempt strengthen my argument, though I am not sure that this would be effective.

     And so continues the quest to discover how to effectively argue what it is that I’m actually arguing.