You know the origin of the word, "to babble," right? It came, of course, from the Tower of Babel. Remember that story? The people after Noah thought they'd build a tower to heaven. God decided to stop them ... by confusing their language. End of tower (Gen 11:1-9). Okay, maybe that's not the root of the word, but the idea is still there. The point, then, is if you can confuse the language, you can stop cooperation.
Welcome to Babel II.
Now, let's be clear. Words are not a thing. They are not real. They have no substance, no atoms, no existence. Words are actually only symbols. These symbols are intended to convey ideas from one mind to another. Obviously, then, the two minds would need to understand the symbols being used in order to communicate and understand each other. Thus, the only importance behind words is to have a shared understanding of the symbol. If you say "green" and I say "green" and I'm thinking a particular color and you're thinking environmental issues, we won't be communicating at all.
This is why we need to cut through the jargon and get down to actual communication. If you use "marriage" with one definition and I use it with an entirely different one, we won't be communicating. Toss out some terms -- "hate," "bigot," "homophobic," "misogynist" ... you get the idea -- and the conversation is over. No need to go on. But is it true? Are the things being labeled this way actually these things?
An example. There is brewing in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) a return of a century-old debate about women preachers. It's odd because the SBC is largely understood to be a "fundamentalist" (one of those words, again), Bible-believing, Evangelical, conservative organization. They have wavered from time to time, but for a couple of decades now they've been coming back to hardcore biblical Christianity. So along comes this question of "I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet" (1 Tim 2:12). "Haters!" And the discussion is over. "Misogynists!" And we can't consider the merits of the arguments. Because "hater" and "misogynist" have meaning and it's not good. But are they accurate? That all depends, doesn't it? If we get beyond the labels and look at the concept in question, if you claim to follow the Bible and come to interpret that passage as "I do indeed permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man," then we have a real problem. The Bible has no meaning at all. On the other hand, if the text means what it says, then it would be a violation of God's intended roles for males and females in this particular application to allow women to teach or to exercise authority over a man. You see, in that case it would be neither hate nor misogyny to warn against it. It would be kindness.
But, of course, that won't be allowed. We'll continue to toss out words with more weight than meaning with the express intent of terminating communication and cooperation. We'll continue to redefine terms and then wonder why we're not communicating. It is "Did God really say ...?" all over again. Now, let me see ... who was it again that started that question?
5 comments:
I don’t think the importance of the “battle” for language is. I do believe that the more casual use of many of these loaded terms renders them powerless and trivializes the very real conditions that those words represent. I suspect that as that happens, there will be a push to come up with replacement terms because the old words lose their meaning and power.
I'm concerned about communication (or, more precisely, the utter lack and near impossibility of it) that language brings. If we cannot discuss -- have a meeting of the minds -- we only settle into war.
I agree. Maybe that’s the point. Maybe it’s about eliminating common ground and encouraging the conflict. If that’s the case, it allows folx to categorize their opponents as evil, which allows any tactics to be considered as appropriate and fair. In essence it allows for an “all’s fair” and a “end justifies the means” response, and just eliminates more civility.
When the message I get is "You are too judgmental and a just God should send you to eternal torment for your position," I'm pretty sure I'm not getting the right communication. At least, I'd like to think not.
I agree. I do find it ironic when people who deny the existence of Hell, who certainly couldn’t ever imagine a loving God allowing eternal punishment, who come up with all sorts of metaphors to explain away Jesus’ teaching, are quick to condemn me to this imaginary place when they get upset.
Post a Comment