A Whole New World
Traditionally, in the West, lying has been seen as a vice and not a virtue. However, thanks to the growing influence of Critical Theory, this perspective has been flipped on its head. Instead of living by the truth and seeking to understand God and the world as they really are, our society seeks to impose outrageous lies upon us. In many ways we have cooperated with these lies without realising it.
In the world of Critical Theory, the idea of objective truth is rejected outright. Instead, truth is something that each culture and society creates through the imposition of its own ideology and language. For the woke, life should be viewed as a complex system of competing power structures. The dominant power structures maintain their power by controlling the ways in which knowledge is produced (think “whiteness”, and straight males). They call this “hegemony”.
One of the key ways that “oppressors” control the truth is by controlling the “discourses” of society. Discourses are simply the ways in which things can be talked about. The Critical Theorists, Robin DiAngelo and Ozlem Sensoy summarise it this way;
Language is not a neutral transmitter of a universal, objective, or fixed reality. Rather, language is the way we construct reality, the framework we use to give meaning to our experiences and perceptions within a given society… Furthermore, language is not just words; it includes all of the ways we communicate with others. Discourses include not only what we say, but also what we don’t say (how we learn what lies under the surface of the iceberg). The scholarly term for language in all of its dimensions is discourse.[1]
The point they want to make here is that the way we speak about things literally creates our reality. Since there is no objective knowledge, it must be constructed through discourses and hegemony. In other words, since they reject the objective truth of God’s word and creation, they want to create a new world through fundamentally reshaping language.
It should be pointed out that we all use language in precise ways that do shape how we think about issues. We all use language intentionally to mould how we view the world. The difference between the politically correct and consistent Christians is this; we seek to use strong language and clear images to point to reality as it really is. The Critical Theorists, on the other hand, seek to use soft language to pervert and contradict the reality beneath the words.
This is very different to using euphemisms. We all use euphemisms from time to time. We say that we are ‘going to the bathroom’, or that someone has ‘passed on’. These are soft ways of pointing to crude or harsh realities. But again, this is very different to the practice of using soft words to fundamentally contradict and overturn the underlying realities.
Critical Theorists want a world where women are free to hire assassins to butcher their babies. However, their efforts are stymied by the truth that murdering babies is wicked. Therefore, they need to construct a new truth by speaking about abortion as “women’s health care” or “a woman’s right to choose”.
“Progressives” want a world where girls can be men, and where boys should be allowed to have their genitals mutilated by surgeons. Yet, the shackles of oppressive biological reality get in the way of this, so we need to construct new discourses that call this “sex change surgery”, or “gender affirmation surgery”. Gender can’t be something intrinsic to the created order, so we need to call it “gender assigned at birth”. Being a man who embraces and accepts the reality of his penis and testicles can’t just be called normal, we must relabel this as being “cis-gendered”. To call this normal implies that a man who thinks that he is a woman is somehow not normal. Uh yeah.
The woke want a world where they can discriminate against white people based on the colour of their skin to manufacture equal outcomes. But again, they are thwarted by the reality of the sinfulness of partiality and ethnic hatred. So, what do they do? They create a new discourse where race-based discrimination is called “anti-racism”.
These comrades want a world where marriage can be redefined to include the entire queer alphabet. But again, marriage is something defined by God and has always been a covenant relationship between a man and a woman. It is difficult to argue for a fundamental redefinition of marriage, therefore, they simply make the conversation about “marriage equality” and “the right to love who we choose”. By reframing the debate, they prevent it from even taking place. Instead of debating what marriage is, we end up debating who has the right to get married.
Examples of this play could be multiplied all day. The point to recognise is that these revolutionaries want to fundamentally reshape language to the point that we can’t even begin talking about an issue without conceding the ground we wish to defend.
With this destructive perversion of language, these radicals seek to win the debate before it can even take place.
Nice Guys Finish Last
So how should we respond to this play that is being run on us? One thing we must not do is give in to the language policing and adopt their newspeak dictionary. To do so would be to lie. One thing that should be clear to us is that the new discourses are inherently dishonest. The new phrases categorise falsehoods as true for the purpose of cultural transformation. We should have no part in their propagation of lies.
While most truth-loving people understand that we cannot adopt their speech codes wholesale, many folks still get on the endless treadmill of trying to keep up with the ever-changing lexicon. While they still call the killing of a baby abortion, they will adopt all the new terms wherever possible. Without compromising their faith commitments, of course. They call those of the darker hue “blacks”, “negros”, “coloured people”, “African American”, “people of colour”. And they call those with mental or physical ailments, “handicapped”, “retarded”, “crippled”, “disabled”, “differently-abled”. Whatever accommodations they can make, they will.
I want to suggest that this approach is neither effective nor helpful. We need to recognise that it is not the language that these people detest, but it is the reality that the language points to. Just think about it; sincere nice guys have been bending over backwards for decades to make sure they use the right moniker for black people, and while doing so, they were recently informed that all white people are racist. So, how’s that going for you guys? Have your accommodations made you any less racist? Or homophobic? Or transphobic? Or heteronormative? Or misogynistic? Or ableist? No! Last I checked, these seem to be the preeminent issues of our day, according to the woke.
Now, don’t think that our efforts of appeasement haven’t had an effect. They have. They have done a brilliant job of normalising perversion and numbing our sensitivities towards evil. Moreover, our generosity and soft-speak has created an environment where ridiculous behaviour can escape ridicule, and instead be praised. The Overton Window[2] has shifted so far to the left that we’re going to need to take out a wall if it keeps moving. By playing the appeasement game and adopting the new lexicon, we have, in effect, played right into their hand and aided them in their shift of the window. We have made it easier for the radicals to demonise a man speaking plainly, because what kind of uncharitable beast would call women’s rights ‘baby murder’? For all our good intentions, many nice Christians have become dupes. And as the saying goes, “nice guys finish last”.
The Truth Will Set You Free
So, I reject the new-speak dictates of the woke, and I also strongly suggest we do away with our milk toast appeasement strategies too. What path lies ahead then? I want to suggest a few principles for speaking honestly to the compulsive liars of our age.
Firstly, use words that actually reflect the reality of what you believe. Don’t water down evil with euphemisms, or worse, with contradictions of speech. As we think about our current cultural moment, we should also recognise that what is needed are words that cut to the core of the problems. Words that point to the foolishness and wickedness of the disease that is afflicting us. Only once we have given a clear and accurate diagnosis, can we then begin to administer the healing balm of the gospel of grace.
Secondly, we should recognise that offence taken does not equal offence given. When people like myself, speak plainly about the cultural insanity that grips us, we are often chided for our tone. We are told that a more winsome approach would go a long way in assuaging the disbelief of our detractors. Yet, I strongly disagree. I would maintain that it is not the man they have a problem with, but the arguments and the way in which the words cut all the way down into the root of the thing. When Jesus was met by adversaries, even though he was the perfect man with perfect character, it was still easier to attack him as a person, than it was to address his arguments. This is why he was called a Samaritan and demon-possessed (John 8:48). If this strategy had play with the perfect man, how much more convenient will it be against a sinner like me?
Finally, rejoice when you are slandered. Don’t get your knickers in a twist. Don’t mutter curses under your breath. And don’t abandon your post. This is par for the course. We need to recognise that for those who hate the Bible and its teaching, our commitment to God’s word will be seen as arrogance. But for those of us who love the Bible and are committed to it as the standard for all righteousness, it is the rejection of Scripture that should be seen as arrogance. It is humility to recognise our absolute dependence on Bible. All the caveats, nuance and epistemic humility are very often just a guise for a faltering trust in the surety and clarity of God’s word.
11 “Blessed are you when others revile you and persecute you and utter all kinds of evil against you falsely on my account. 12 Rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in heaven, for so they persecuted the prophets who were before you. (Matthew 5:11-12)
On the Other Hand
Usually, throughout this kind of writing, you could expect several qualifying statements that anticipate a few of the common objections. I have intentionally left them out and would instead encourage you to make the qualifying statements for yourself. Ask yourself, “I wonder if Ethan thinks that we should intentionally try and be offensive just for the sake of it?” Probably not. Great. And so on. Now, as a communicator, some will say that I have an obligation to make sure that I am heard. I agree. However, this truism has been exaggerated to untenable extremes. We run into a problem when people do not recognise that they also have an obligation to read or listen in ways that are fair and charitable. What do we do when people are evaluating our words through unjust standards of interpretation? Is it possible to convince a radical leftist that my MAGA hat isn’t a sign of my white supremacy? Speaking from experience, I can tell you the answer is no. In these instances, where our words are being weighed by the standards of modern sensitivities and emotionalism, I suggest that the remedy is more truth. Speak plainly to the unjust standard of “Don’t say anything that sounds mean”, and “Don’t sound so sure of yourself, it comes across as arrogant”. Don’t let our enemies dictate to us our battle strategy. Don’t play by their rules. If we do this, it will be a sure-fire plan for losing.
[1] Sensoy, Ozlem; DiAngelo, Robin. Is Everyone Really Equal?: An Introduction to Key Concepts in Social Justice Education (Multicultural Education Series) (p. 70).
[2] The Overton Window is a phrase coined by Joseph Overton and refers to the range of ideas that are acceptable within public discourse.