Speech Matters

Those who know me, and know my faith, and know how I express that, will know that I am, for my faults, a person of the Book, of the Word of God written, of the Bible. I love it, I think it is marvellous, and I would encourage anyone to dip inside its wild, powerful pages and see if they would encounter God. Because with an open heart, I believe you will.

This post is another one that should be several posts, several big strands, several big ideas. I wrote last week about what happens When the Image of God is Damaged, Broken, and Reduced. That post was very popular, and led to some interesting conversations and connections. I want to say some similar things today.

I've been watching the story about a 'feminist' campaign to see women - in this case Jane Austen - take their (rightful) place on British banknotes, with some interest. Soon after it became a story, one of the campaigners started to receive rape threats and other violent threats from people on Twitter. Other people started to call for a 'report abuse' button, for intervention. Offline, according to this BBC story, an arrest has been made in relation to the case.

I'm essentially sort of a feminist, in so far as Jesus was one. But I'm more than that, I believe in the Image of God, the inherent value and dignity of each human being, regardless of sex/race/age/other. When someone is threatened, online or offline, that image is tainted, damaged, further broken. The ugly effects of sin and individualism spiral ever on, and the tounge/keyboard/mind that echoes something of God, is used to communicate evil, hate, lies. I don't know what the solution to abusive Tweets is. Because I value free speech, but deplore hatred. It seems to me, as has been pointed out before, that bullies and 'troll's are a fact of life - but not an incontrovertible, immovable lump of opposition.

I read this morning a piece by Tim Stanley in the Telegraph, a superb tirade against online bullies of all shapes and sizes, that flowed into a very valid criticism of Richard Dawkins and his online minions, who in Tim's words employ the tactic of "140 characters of sub-GCSE philosophical abuse", which to my mind is a pretty accurate summary of the level of debate on the Internet, and so often Twitter. Tim closes his article with what is in my mind a pertinent question in the light of the case of Tony Miano, and Nick Baines superb blog on the secular bias of the Independent;

"Don't get me wrong: I'm not calling for Dawkins or his ilk to be banned... But if we are having a grown up conversation about what is and isn't offensive, can we Christians, jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Buddhists and All Of The Above be a part of it too? Or is [it] only liberal secularists who are allowed to take offence?"

Twitter. Rant of the free, groans of the brave...

It is a good question. The irony being that some of the best examples of secularists, at least in their own self-descriptions, are people like Richard Dawkins, who come up with brilliantly ill-thought-through tweets like this:

"I am not an enthusiast for diversity of opinion where factual matters are concerned"

Fantastic, Richard, me neither. So what do you make of the evidence for the Resurrection? Others have tried and failed to disprove it, or perhaps you reject the whole of history, in order to ignore one of its more provable events?

Or this;

"I'm accused of lacking "a basic understanding of theology." But is "theology a subject at all? What is there in "theology" to understand?"

Ouch. Apart from the fact that there are plenty of secular, atheistic theologians, a myriad of forms of theology, including a whole swath of historical endeavours, and the simple fact, often ignored by Dawkins and his ilk, that Theology is the basis from which most human intellectual endeavour, at least in the west, has sprung. But this paragraph isn't very tweetable, so obviously doesn't count.

Or finally this, which is a perfect example of what Tim Stanley is getting at;

"We don't know how life arose in primeval soup. Therefore Jesus died for our sins and anyone who draws Mohammed should be killed. It follows"

Again, a startling disregard for how speech itself works, let alone reality, or a coherent understanding of how different faiths work. But then Dawkins would probably not like Christians that would slightly agree with him, and point out the point of Creation, rather than the mechanics. Read this on 'Literal Creation' for more.

It is very easy to be exasperated by Dawkins and his ilk, and so often that distracts us from more serious abuses of speech, such as the despicable treatment of the aforementioned feminist campaigner. I'm reminded of something the Apostle Paul wrote, in Colossians 4:6, which would be a good guide for how we might conduct ourself in speech, on and offline;

"Let your speech always be gracious, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how you ought to answer each person"

I think that would go a long way towards moderating comments and reducing hate. Note that Paul doesn't say we can't disagree, or even be passionate, but merely that there might be something to speaknig well, speaking graciously, speaking winsomely, and respecting the Image of God that everyone bears, be they feminist campaigner or threatening Twitter troll, militant atheist or arrogant Christian blogger. It is a radical idea, echoing Paul's understanding and articulation of the Gospel, and its implications for everything, including the way we speak. But that might hint at the truth of the Gospel. Which would get the tolerance police out. So we'd better leave it there.

_______________

If you've read my blog for the first time, or are a regular reader, then I'd love you to find and 'like' my Facebook page. You can read about that, and the name change in this post.