Tuesday, May 4, 2021

Constructive Speech: Severe Harshness Does Not Equate To Cruelty

Paul, in Ephesians 4:25 and 4:29, insists that among human moral obligations is that of speaking truthfully and that of speaking in a way that builds others up.  Truth is metaphysically and epistemologically rooted in logic, but what does it mean to use words that build others up?  The "Golden Rule" is hopelessly subjective, so it is only valid in light of the specific commands of Mosaic Law, Jesus, and other figures speaking on behalf of God.  Thus, it is foolish to act either like everyone wants to be treated in the same way or like human desires hold any moral weight whatsoever, whether when it comes to speech or anything else.  There something else that must be affirmed.  Does building others up always have to involve words of personal affection?  The only rational and Biblical answer is absolutely not.

First of all, it is logically provable that the concept of kindness does not always connect with the concept of wellbeing or morality.  It is possible for kindness to either have nothing to do with them or even to be contrary to them.  Second, kindness is a supererogatory kind of goodness that is not actually obligatory, as some obligatory acts might be relatively harsh or detached from kindness (and cruelty, of course, which is not the same as harshness and is by definition a concept of illicit treatment).  This also means that, while acts of kindness are morally good according to the Bible, no one sins if they intentionally refrain from performing any kind act that is not separately obligatory, such as opposing slanderous accusations against a friend.

With these logical facts grasped, one might wonder what exactly it means to speak so "that it may benefit those who listen."  One of the important subsequent truths is that kind and harsh words, even severe words, can be used on behalf of truth.  Clearly, people can benefit from being addressed in a neutral or even harsh, damning way.  Although this can be recognized from purely logical reflection on the nature of truth, any Christian who pretends otherwise contradicts the many examples of Jesus himself speaking rather confrontationally, fiercely, and forcefully (like in Matthew 23).  Whoever affirms that Jesus is described as sinless in the Bible and while saying that harshness is inherently sinful probably has little to no awareness of how inept they are at staying consistent with their own delusional premises!

Telling people the truth when they would otherwise dance around it, ignore it, or rarely discover it on their own is ultimately the kindest thing one could do for them on the Christian worldview.  I do not even mean telling them what the Bible says about the gospel, as I mean something so much deeper and broader than Biblical soteriology.  The gospel is but a mere fraction of a Christian worldview that is already adrift among more foundational and important philosophical truths than the fact that redemption is possible.  I mean that the Bible's condemnation of lying necessitates that the Bible treats truth as a thing people have an obligation to acknowledge and affirm, and thus truth takes precedence over all subjective whims and preferences according to genuine Christian philosophy--even an urge to be gratuitously kind in order to hopefully win someone over.

If someone will not reason out a truth on their own and will not accept a truth when demonstrated by others (genuinely proven with rationalistic precision rather than petty persuasion, of course), it is not as if their sense of subjective entitlement to kindness has any sort of philosophical validity.  It follows from this that any kindness that interferes with an unrelenting and total concern for important truths needs to actually be tossed aside.  Kindness may be the intention, but error and separation from understanding reality is the true form of such misguided, superficial attempts to make others feel special.  Indeed, sacrificing truth to emotionally appease others or appear less harsh when one has not slandered or abused them is at best an act of supererogatory mercy that no one can be obligated to choose.

No comments:

Post a Comment