Newsletter #83
On the Persistence of Language Games
The first presidential debate of the 2024 election cycle is this Wednesday. I suspect it would be better for my sanctification not to watch, but if I’m right about what I say in today’s newsletter, then I’m probably obliged to watch.
Words, Words, Words
For as long as I can remember I’ve been deeply interested in words—their uses, possibilities, and perils. I’m not sure how much of this can be attributed to my mother keeping books in front of me, my competent Language Arts teachers in school, or something about how God made me. In truth, it’s probably all three. But there’s something especially satisfying and troubling about language.
Most people, even those who struggle with spelling or grammar, eventually recognize the potencies of language. This often begins in middle school. In those formative, awkward, and especially depraved years, young people learn how language can be manipulated to suit their own ends. “The teacher told us it was an open-book test, but no notes. It just happened that I had my notes inside my book.” You catch my drift. We chuckle about it, but Christian maturity steers us away from such dishonesty and cynicism to a more responsible approach to language, both in terms of how we use it and how we discern its use in the world.
Somewhere along the way I began spotting some curious things about language. The idea of semantic range hit home with me—the ways in which individual words (in more than one language) could mean very different things in different contexts. Mark might be a sharp dresser, but he could just as easily be called a sharp thinker or someone who prefers a sharp knife.
I was also intrigued by the ways euphemisms saturated so much of our everyday speech. Instead of speaking of Cousin George’s drinking problem, people almost always opted for speaking of his “struggles.”
Language Games
Other linguistic tendencies and oddities also fascinated me. However, the one that stood head and shoulders (there’s a metaphor for you) above the rest was the way language games were being played in the public square, especially by politicians and journalists. Almost always these games were used to perpetuate progressive-leaning social and economic policies. I first began expressing these concerns in print in a 2011 article at the HSF entitled, “Language Games in the Public Square.” Let me use two examples to illustrate the problem I describe there.
Notice how we use the language of the “bedroom” (a euphemism to be sure!) to shade discussions of sexual conduct and orientation in such a way that only an intrusive and invasive person could protest or even raise questions about harmful ways for men and women to relate (or men and men, or women and women). The image is palpable. For me to speak against the cultural tide concerning sexual norms and mores is to foist my own ideology into the bedrooms of consenting adults. How dare I.
Another familiar example is the way the abortion issue is largely framed. It’s often not a pro-life versus pro-abortion discussion. It’s an anti-choice or anti-abortion versus pro-choice debate. Even when journalists used the language of “pro-life” to refer to persons like me, they often put scare quotes around it or paint this position as if it is the religious crowd versus everyone else, despite how many non-religious persons are also pro-life.
The Example De Jour
And now, to the cultural mainstream’s current favorite: “anti-LBGTQ.” I plan to write a little soon on the specific question of transgenderism, so I’ll reserve my thoughts here to the use of “anti-.” (Although adding -phobic to the end of all kinds of words to smear those who disagree is a similar move.)
Anti- is a common prefix. Coming from the Greek, it simply means “opposed to” or “against.” It can also mean “preventing or suppressing” or “reversing or undoing.” Antiaircraft missiles belong to the realm of military defense. You likely have antibacterial soap near your sink. Occasionally anti is used to mean “before,” such as “antipasto” (Think appetizer at an Italian restaurant). But anti- is overwhelmingly used to signal contrariness and opposition. Moreover, it’s deployed by unthinking or dishonest politicians and journalists to simplify what’s complicated, and shame those who dissent.
As a little homework assignment, keep your eyes open for how many times “anti” will surface in a news program or in print. The occurrences multiply quite quickly.
In just the last six months, widely supported policies have been enacted by various states about the guidelines for women’s sports, boundaries on sex education, parental notification and consent, and treatment of gender dysphoric youth. Nevertheless, these moves have been frequently panned as “anti-LGBTQ laws.” Mind you, it’s okay if California enacts a policy that moves to the left. (It likely won’t be covered). Yet if Alabama essentially clarifies something that was status quo for time immemorial, it makes national news as right-wing extremism. Curiously, even when a policy solely concerns the ‘T’ in LBGTQ it’s deemed a broadside against all lesbian, gay, bisexual, and queer persons. (Never mind the fact that a growing number of homosexuals are writing publicly about the problems with being linked to an alphabet soup that includes transgenderism.)
There’s a much more grotesque example of the deployment of “anti-” in journalism: “targeting.” In a moment when many are concerned about militant language in our public discourse, this problem has been aided and abetted by headlines like, “Young, transgender and targeted in Missouri.” Consider all that’s presupposed in such headlines: (1) These people are a favored group; (2) They deserve that which they seek; (3) Any attempt to question or curb their pursuit perpetuates violence against them.
No debate, no discussion, no dissent. You are either “for us” or “against [anti] us.” And to be for us requires you to agree with our diagnosis and solutions in every way. One expects this kind of all-or-nothing perspective from the most radical activists. After all, you can’t raise money off discussion, dialogue, give-and-take, and compromise. We shouldn’t, however, be getting this all-or-nothing, dishonest claptrap from journalists and politicians who have obligations, formal and informal, to the public.
Keep Your Eyes Peeled
Jesus told his disciples to be wise as serpents and harmless as doves. This clearly has implications for Christians who try to discern deceptive uses of language. Sometimes they’re not even intentional. In some cases, they may be well-intentioned. Nevertheless, we need to spot them, analyze them, and know what kind of response is warranted.
Consider a few more examples.
At the college where I serve as an adjunct instructor, I’m obliged each year to complete some training. Given the ever-changing landscape of higher education, there are always new policies and procedures to stay abreast of. My school has joined the chorus of those who think calling someone without a major “undecided” is too uncharitable. Instead, they’re now referring to such students as “deciding.” As one administrator put it, this is intended “to reflect a more positive tone.”
Interesting. I didn’t know that “undecided” was inherently negative. Need it be taken to mean more than, “I haven’t yet decided on a major,” for any number of reasons? I never felt a special stigma as a first-semester freshman for not having decided on a major. After all, I was still taking a full load of classes—mostly the same ones as other classmates who had declared a major. Wouldn’t being undecided only become negative after a year or two? And wouldn’t it be reasonable to ask at that point, “Why are you in college if you don’t know what you’re here for?”
Another curious thing about opting for “deciding” over “undecided” is that the -ing ending suggests they are engaged in an ongoing process of decision. That is, a “deciding person” is actively trying to decide what to study. But are they? Is it possible that they are just going to college because someone else is paying for it, or because their parents or society expect it?
Possibly good intentions are behind this new classification, but the implications of it aren’t at all clear or plainly positive.
Consider the use of the word “partners.” Partner found its way into contemporary discourse some years ago in the context of domestic relationships (often homosexual ones) which fall short of marriage. Whether they fell short of marriage due to legal strictures or high-minded objections to all traditional institutions, partner became something of a euphemism in the Western world.
I also increasingly see the word “partner” being ascribed to what would have once been called “vendors,” “contractors,” or “providers.” Think of a company who says we’re now partnering with Good Food Solutions (fictional) to stock our café for our employees. Sometimes this language of partnering is used since vendor, contractor, and related words sound so sterile, impersonal, and/or transactional. Yet do contracts necessarily preclude a personal dimension? Conversely, do I need to call every vendor a partner just to dignify the relationship? Do we need to exchange Christmas cards for this not to be an exploitive relationship?
There’s a temptation for churches and Christians to back away from terms like partner due to such associations (example one) or ambiguities (example two). However, it’s a perfect good translation, in many contexts, of the Greek word koinonia. Do we really want to cede words like “partner” or “partnership” which so obviously have biblical roots?
Finally, an example from the ministry arena. I was in a meeting of denominational leaders several years ago. Some questions were being raised about whether a specific ministry entity was drifting from its mission. To put it more precisely, this ministry appeared to be broadening the scope of the kinds of ministry it was originally chartered to do. The representative from that entity said something like this, “We’re trying to respond to the needs as they arise, so we’re figuring this out a bit as we go. Our work is evolving.”
I knew exactly what this dear brother and friend meant. He gave an honest response to a tough question. But his use of the metaphor of evolution caught my ear. The metaphor is connected directly to evolutionary theory, a biological concept. In standard evolutionary theory, organisms change or evolve from one type of thing to another type of thing—given enough time and chance. At a moment in history we might have a single-celled organism. A few billion years later, we might have Fred.
Thus, I questioned the ministry representative about this. “Is this ministry changing from one thing to an entirely other thing? Or, is this new venture simply an unavoidable entailment of your original, express purpose? Are we talking evolution, adaptation, or something else?”
I was by no means trying to be a gadfly. However, I wondered if his use of that metaphor was chosen because it was just the first word that popped into his head as he spoke, or if because it revealed what was actually unfolding.
Church People are Language People
I think (and hope) that there’s a way Christians can discern the world of words we’re swimming in. We don’t have to be language police, but we are most certainly language people. We are given new birth by God’s Spirit working through His Word (1 Pt. 1:23). His Word (words) shape us constantly. Those words become the content of our message to the world (Rom. 10:8), the ones we sing unto one another (Col. 3:16), the ones we speak with love (Eph. 4:15), and the ones which teach, reprove, correct, and train (2 Tim. 3:16).
Martin Luther memorably said that Christians were creatures of the Word. Without question, this is true. But a necessary entailment of this claim is that Christians are people concerned with words. Therefore, we must be alert to headlines, slogans, and cliches that take hold of the popular imagination. And most certainly, we need to make sure our own imaginations are shaped by the Word so we can discern words, wherever we encounter them.
Follow-Up
Recently I was communicating with a pastor in a city where one of our members was attending college. We were trying to coordinate some outreach to this student so she could find a strong church for during the school year. I really appreciated his concern and intentionality. To me, this is another form of the “spiritual chain of custody” that I described in Newsletter #81.
Currently Reading:
A. Craig Troxel, With All Your Heart: Orienting Your Mind, Desires, and Will Toward Christ.
Tara Isabella Burton, Strange Rites: New Religions for a Godless World.
Quote of the Week:
The mind, whether fallen or reborn, is always biased, motivated, and impassioned by the state of the heart in general. This should not surprise us, given what was stated earlier. Remember, ‘heart’ is used in Scripture, first and foremost, to refer to the unity of our inner self. The mind, the desires, and the will are distinct functions of the heart, but they are not separate or unrelated. They constantly influence and relate to one another. This is the way the heart was meant to operate—with knowledge, affection, and volition working with each other.
Craig Troxel, With All Your Heart: Orienting Your Mind, Desires, and Will Toward Christ.
On My Mind: Transmissions
I don’t know much about cars, but I know regular maintenance is important on older/high-mileage vehicles. Now I’ve discovered what is apparently a debate among mechanics: the value of changing transmission fluid. Some say you should do it more as the car ages, and others say not to touch it if you’ve never changed it before. I’m sure there are more opinions also. I’d welcome some input from readers on this.