Posted on 02/19/2014 1:50:16 AM PST by markomalley
In the Gospel from Last Sunday the Lord warns of using uncivil and/or hateful words such as (Raqa and fool). And yet the same Lord Jesus often used very strong language toward some of his opponents sometimes calling them names such as vipers, hypocrites and tombs.
We live in a world that often insists on the use of gentle language and euphemisms. While not a bad thing, we also tend to manifest a kind of thin-skinned quality and a political correctness that is too fussy about many things, often taking personally what is not meant personally.
What is the overall teaching on Scripture when it comes this sort of colorful language? Are there some limits and ground rules? Lets take a look.
The word “civility” dates back to about the mid 16th century and has an older meaning that referred to one who possessed the quality of having been schooled in the humanities. In academic settings, debate, at least historically, was governed by a tendency to be highly nuanced, careful, cautious, formal and trained in rhetorical skill. It’s rules were also prone to refer to one’s opponents by honorary titles (Doctor, professor etc.) and euphemisms such as “my worthy opponent.” Hence, as the word enters into ordinary usage it comes to mean speech or behavior that is polite, courteous, gentle and measured.
As one might guess, there are a lot of cultural variances in what is considered to be civil. And this insight is very important when we look at the biblical data of what constituted civil discourse. Frankly, the biblical world was far less dainty about discourse than we have become in 21st century America. The scriptures, to include the New Testament, are filled with vigorous discourse. Jesus for example as we have seen, really mixes it up with his opponents and even calls them names. We shall see more of this in a moment. But the scriptures also counsel charity and warn of unnecessarily angry speech. In the end a balance of the Scriptural witness to civility must be sought along with an appreciation of the cultural variables at work.
Let’s examine a few of the texts that counsel charity and a modern and American notion of civility:
So, all these texts counsel a measured, charitable and edifying discourse. Name-calling and hateful or unnecessary expressions of anger are out of place. And this is a strong biblical tradition, especially in the New Testament.
But there are also strong contrasts to this instruction evident in the Biblical data as well. And, a lot of it from an unlikely source, Jesus. Paul too who wrote many of the counsels above often manifests strident denunciations of his opponents and even members of the early Church. Consider some of the passages below, first by Jesus then by Paul and other Apostles:
Now, most of the passages above would violate modern norms about civil discourse. Are they sinful? They are God’s word! And yet, they seem rather shocking to modern ears. Imagine getting into your time machine and going to hear Jesus denounce the crowds and calling them children of the devil. It really blows a 21 Century mind
I want to suggest to you that these sorts of quotes go a long way to illustrate the cultural dimension of what it means to be civil. The bottom line is that there is a great deal of variability in what people consider civil discourse. In some cultures there is a greater tolerance for anger. I remember dating an Italian girl for a brief time back in college. I remember being at her house and how she and her mother could really go at it with a heated debate (usually in Italian – Mama Mia!). But no sooner had they very intensely argued over some particular point, say of preparing the meal, than they were just fine, as if nothing had happened. Angry discourse was more “normal” for them.Even in this country there are regional differences about civility. In New York and Boston, edgy comments and passionate interruptive debate are common. But in the upper Midwest and parts of the Deep South conversation is more gentle and reserved.
At the time of Jesus angry discourse was apparently more “normal” for, as we see, Jesus himself engages in a lot of it, even calling them names like, “Hypocrites.” “Brood of Vipers,” “Liars,” “Wicked” etc. Yet, the same scriptures that record these facts about Jesus also teach that he never sinned. Hence, at that time such terms were not considered sinful to utter.
Jesus also engaged in prophetic actions like overturning the tables in the temple courts. No one said he’d done wrong, they just wondered where he got the authority to do this (cf Mark 11:28). In that culture prophets did things like this. No one liked it, but just like our culture tolerates some degree of civil disobedience, even reveres it, Jesus’ culture expected things like this from prophets.
Careful -Now be careful here. I am not saying it is OK for us to talk like this because Jesus did. We do not live then, we live now, and in our culture such dialogue is almost never acceptable. There ARE cultural norms we have to respect to remain in the realm of Charity. Exactly how to define civility in every instance is not always clear. An old answer to these hard to define things is “I know when I see it.” So perhaps it is more art than science to define civility. But clearly, we tend today, to prefer a gentler discourse.
On the other hand, as already observed we also tend to be a little thin-skinned and hyper-sensitive. And the paradoxical result of insisting on greater civility is that we are so easily “outraged” (one of the more overused words in English today). We take offense where none is intended and we easily presume that the mere act of disagreeing is somehow arrogant, intentionally hurtful or even hateful. We seem so easily provoked and quick to be offended. All of this escalates anger further and charges of hate and intolerance go back and forth where there is simply sincere disagreement.
Balance - The Scriptures give us two balanced reminders. First that we should speak the truth in love, and with compassion and understanding. But it also portrays to us a time when people had thicker skin and were less hyper-sensitive and anxious in the presence of disagreement. We can learn from both biblical traditions. The biblical formula seems to be “clarity” with “charity,” the truth with a balance of toughness and tenderness. Perhaps an old saying comes to mind: Say what you mean, mean what you say, but don’t say it mean.
Right, but in principle having a conversation about things is (1) not the same as doing the things discuss and (2) may result in discovery of truth about those things.
Sure, but sometimes “truth” is a matter of opinion just as reality depends on a person’s perception of it.
No, opinions vary but the truth is not dependent on them, and neither is the reality.
Relativism is the mental poison the left wing government uses to better control your spirit.
What if a jury decides that an innocent person is guilty of murder? It was the jury’s opinion that the defendant was guilty (”truth”). Their perception(s) of evidence presented by the prosecution and defense could have differed and resulted in a mistrial but through coercion or just one person changing his or her mind, the verdict came out as “guilty”. However, years later a successful appeal(s) or overturning of a verdict is achieved based on DNA evidence (truth) that was not procurable at the time of the original conviction. So, what was the truth and when did they really know it?
The jury verdict in either case is the collective opinion of the jury. It does not alter the truth of what actually happened.
“It does not alter the truth of what actually happened.”
I wasn’t trying to suggest that it would. However, it seems that a jury would believe that its unanimous opinion would serve as “truth” enough to send a person to prison for life or even enough for the convict to be sentenced to death AND executed.
Yes, and at times, the jury would make a mistake as to what the truth is.
“Yes, and at times, the jury would make a mistake as to what the truth is.”
...
Because all too often, they assume too much in both
“kangaroo” and real courts of law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.