A friend of mine gave me a book the other day…quite by chance; or not. I was given a copy of the book The Language Police. I have only had the chance to peruse it, but I have come across a couple of interesting paragraphs, one of which I’d like to share with you.

The goal of the language police is not just to stop us from using objectionable words but to stop us from having objectionable thoughts. The language police believe that reality follows language usage. If they can stop people from ever seeing offensive words and ideas, they can prevent them from having the thought or committing the act that the words signify. If they never read a story about suicide or divorce, then they will never even think about killing themselves or ending their marriage. If they abolish words that have man as a prefix or suffix, then women will achieve equality. If children read and hear only language that has been cleansed of any mean or hurtful words, they will never have a mean or hurtful thought. With enough censorship, the language police might create a perfect world.

Let us, at last, fire the language police. We don’t need them. Let them return to the precincts where speech is rationed, thought is imprisoned, and humor is punished” (The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn, Diane Ravitch, 158-159, 170)

I agree.

Tags: censorship, language, The Language Police

Most of us are, at various times, susceptible to using rhetoric that is inflammatory, illogical, careless, rude, or divisive.  This waywardness of the tongue (or typing, as it were) is often found in the presence of impatience, hastiness, defensiveness, passion, anger, pain, and a variety of other (often negative) thoughts, feelings and emotions.  Sometimes, however, it can simply be a failure in communication.  I had a college professor who would tell us that some questions are unanswerable because the question is faulty.  “Do you still beat your wife?” is a yes or no question that I personally cannot answer with a yes or a no because I have never beaten my wife.  We are sometimes prone to asking questions and making statements like this as well.  We like things to be either/or.

I have been somewhat surprised at the conversations that have been taking place on CRN.Info over the past couple of days.  The norm around here has been typical of many relationships in our lives, which involve 4 ways in which we respond to what others around us say: 1) we agree with them, 2) we ignore them, 3) we get upset with them, but agree to disagree, or 4) we fight it out.  Each response has its place; but sometimes I forget the value of the fourth one (fighting it out) when done in grace, respect, and forgiveness because it is so often done out of a heart and mind clouded by the previously mentioned attitutdes.  When we are willing and committed to fight it out (not fight for the sake of fighting) in the community of God, our hearts and minds, our very selves are challenged and stretched to grow.

What we say and how we say it can direct a conversation, but it can also redeem a conversation.  My desire has been to avoid asking questions (and making statements) that are fueled by ignorance, faulty thinking, and/or strong emotions.  This has led me of late to talk a lot less (often about even important matters).  But I suppose that if those things never came out, we’d all be agreeing with and ignoring each other.  Healthy, functional relationships rely on the ability to disagree and even argue, knowing that when all is said and done, we’re all growing to become like Christ.  Hopefully I can begin to listen all the time, and speak up when it matters.

Tags: anger, arguing, fighting, grace, language, words

Bill Mounce has written a Eph 2:49" href="http://www.koinoniablog.net/2009/02/eph-429-and-blogs.html" target="_blank">great post over at the Koinonia blog about our speech and anger.  He has some deep and well thought through insights and applications that apply to all of us.  Here’s a snippet, but if you have the time, go read the whole thing:

One of the patterns that I have noticed is that we often are justified in our anger, and that anger vents itself in ungodly language that clearly violates the clear teaching of Scripture. But because our anger is so strong, and our justification so deep, we feel that not only are we justified to speak in corrupting and graceless ways, but that we have some sort of divine mandate to do so. It would be wrong, we reason, to speak any other way.

I have often commented to myself (and those around me) that gossip, slander, and critical speech are the native tongue in the church.

We see this expressed in different ways among ADM’s and the writers here, and we might be inclined to see the errors of others, but I’d like to encourage you to think about your own responses to other people when you get angry.

Tags: anger, language, self-justification, vulgarity