Popular science fiction author China Miéville is troubled by
how the media refers to the … er … troubled.
When asked about the 2011 riots in London, England, his primary concern seems to be the language used to describe those who
assaulted pensioners, burned people
out of their homes and threw bricks at
responding firefighters:
“For a long time I’ve been struck and horrified by the
incredible cultural spite we’ve got in the UK towards young people. The
constant use, for example, of the term ‘feral’ to describe troubled children
should be a matter of utter shame: that our culture has normalised that
adjective is an expression of our culture’s moral degradation, far more than
children’s.”
In Miéville’s view, the moral degradation of modern
British culture is epitomized in its failure to speak kindly of its most
debased element.
Those who reported the London riots rather than simply opining about them might point out that Miéville’s “young people” and “troubled children” averaged almost
23 years of age and were 91.6% male.
In spite of this, Mr. Miéville considers it “incredible cultural spite”, “an utter shame” and “moral degradation” to use to word “feral”
to describe adult human beings who behave themselves worse than animals. He is not alone in this. So-called progressive writers
and opinionators (Miéville is a Marxist) often take the position that the way we
describe the perpetrators of criminal acts is as bad as or worse than the act
itself. Some people seem to feel it is more offensive to call someone a “slut”
or “whore” than to make one’s living at it.
It’s “hate speech”, dontcha know.
Should Christians take this sort of thing seriously? Is it
unkind or shameful to call a spade a spade?
A short list of biblical examples may suffice to provide a
counterbalancing view:
- “You brood of vipers” (John the Baptist)
- “You blind fools!” (Jesus Christ)
- “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons” (the apostle Paul)
- “… ignorant and unstable people” (Peter)
- “You adulterous people!” (James)
That is just the tip of a very large iceberg of “spite”, “shame”
and “moral degradation”, if we are to adopt Mr. Miéville’s standard of
acceptable language; a tiny representative sample of the sorts of things said
about those who, well, DESERVE them.
Explaining away such scriptural language as criticizing “the conduct, not the person” clearly will not suffice. In each instance and
many others, the writer of the word of God is describing character, not
particular actions, as deficient, sinful, debased, unintelligent, hypocritical,
moronic or wrong.
The Other Side
The political and cultural Left loves to engage in
propaganda and rarely presents both sides of an issue but since we don’t play
by their rules, let’s stop to undermine our own argument for a moment. Does Mr. Miéville actually have a point? What about Bible verses that condemn the use of
insulting language? For instance:
- “Do not speak evil against one another, brothers” (James)
- “Let your speech always be gracious” (Paul)
- “Do not repay … insult with insult” (Peter)
There are more verses that might be interpreted to weight
the scales on the other side of the question too. I know Christians who
understand such passages to teach that we should never express a negative
opinion about anyone or anything. Are they right?
Stating the Obvious
You will notice that Paul encourages gracious speech, then refers to Cretans as “liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons”. Peter tells us not
to be insulting, then refers to those who distort the word of God as “ignorant
and unstable”. Even James speaks about taming the tongue while calling people “adulterous”.
We might put this down to mere human inconsistency if such
statements were made off the cuff in a context that is merely historical. Because
while Bible history is just as inspired as anything else in the word of God in that
it is a faithful record of what went on, historical narrative simply informs us
what was said — as when Paul unknowingly
referred to a high priest as a “whited wall” and later retracted his words.
Historical narrative rarely includes the writer’s opinion as to whether what
was said was actually correct, appropriate
to voice, or whether it should serve as an example to us.
But these statements of the apostles are made in the
Holy Spirit-inspired epistles in the context of teaching. They cannot be mere ‘slips’
for which Peter, Paul or James will readily apologize when we bring the issue
up with them in glory.
So, no, it’s not inconsistency in the writers of scripture
at work here.
Furthermore, what are we to make of the statements of the
Lord, which seem equally harsh or even harsher?
The problem is that we are comparing apples and oranges.
The Difference between Insults and Correction
The redefinition of words and corruption of language in the age of tolerance has rendered many people ill-equipped to distinguish
between “hate”, “insults”, “prejudice” and a simple, truthful description of certain
kinds of debased human conduct and character. We are afraid to call a spade a spade.
But hurling insults out of hatred (or even describing young
thugs as, well, “young thugs”), out of a lack of sympathy for the
conditions of poverty is something completely different
from the accurate diagnosis of a condition that desperately cries out to be
addressed. Such a diagnosis is not only healthy and necessary; it is
considerably more loving than merely excusing sin.
The difference is all about intent.
When Paul tells Titus about the natural inclination of the
inhabitants of Crete to be gluttonous, lazy and to lie (oops, I’m forgetting “evil brutes”), he is not being racist
or gratuitously insulting. He is not engaged in “tearing down the healthy
self-image” of the poor Cretans. Not in the least. He is relating a problem
so systemic and facts so far beyond dispute that even other Cretans agreed with him. And since these are other believers he is describing, his purpose is both loving and corrective. He goes on to tell Titus: “rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith, not devoting themselves to Jewish myths and the commands of people who turn away from the truth.”
That’s not “hate speech”, folks; that’s a diagnosis in aid
of a cure. It’s exactly what was needed in Crete. But without a clear, un-PC
assessment of the problem, the issue could not possibly be addressed.
Whenever we, motivated by love, utilize language that accurately
reflects reality — even when that language seems harsh — we stand firmly in the
tradition of both the Lord and the apostles.
A spade remains a spade whether we choose to call it that or not.
Well said.
ReplyDeleteThese days we hear a lot about "slut shaming," as if that were somehow a terrible thing to do. But I can't see why, if someone had abundantly merited the word "slut" by her or his overt and repeated behaviour, we should be upset for allowing "shame" to be associated with their actions or character.
If offence at the word is all people are concerned about, we could always speak of "slattern shaming," or "prostitute shaming," or "adulteress shaming," or whatever.
But I think it's the "shame" part they don't like, not the "slut" part.
So I wish I could ask them, "In your view, then, at what point would a promiscuous man or woman *deserve* shaming?" In fact, is there really *any* point at which our society thinks *anyone* could *ever* merit shame?