PEDAGOGICAL JUSTIFICATION FOR A RHETORICAL CRITICISM THEORY-METHOD DISTINCTION IN

Though most rhetorical critics agree that theoretical illumination should be the primary goal of criticism, disagreement exists as to the proper relationship between theory and method. Some scholars argue that theory and method are merged in rhetorical criticism. Others maintain that theory and method ought to be distin-guished. This paper argues that a theory-method merger benefits criticism, but that a theory-method distinction is justified on pedagogical grounds. An analysis of Francis Schaeffer’s A Christian Manifesto illustrates how a theory-method distinction can inform rhetorical criticism. Scholars in rhetoric have long expressed concern with the relationship between theory and method in criticism. Though it has been commonplace to identify rhetorical critics by what they study, contemporary thought focuses more on how critics study.1 The “Report of the Committee on the Advancement and Refinement of Rhetorical Criticism ” (Bitzer & Black, 1971) asserts that “rhetorical criticism is to be identified by the kinds of questions posed by the critic, ” and that “the rhetorical critic is identifiable by the nature of his inquiry ” (pp. 220-221). This concern for