In a comment on Kirby's blog, I noted that “political correctness” is nothing more or less than the notion that our words and deeds should conform to our beliefs. As I've thought about this subsequently, it occurred to me that while "political correctness" in its current meaning dates to the 70's, and the conservative backlash to a few minutes after that, that the underlying idea is sound, and that I've encountered it in sources of far greater antiquity.
So I invite you to consider the first commandment,
Exodus 20:7 (RSV) You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
and with it, the following exegesis by Jesus of Nazereth:
Matthew 6:9 (RSV) Pray then like this: Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name.
Consider that first petition, “Hallowed be thy name.” This is often misunderstood. Jesus is not asking that God's name be holy, for God's name is holy. Jesus is asking that God grant us that we conform our words and attitudes to our belief in the holiness of our Lord God, and the sanctity of his name. Is this not political correctness? Of course it is. Yet many of the same conservatives who bristle at “political correctness” pray this prayer every day without a twinge of irony.
And I believe it is worth considering what the first commandment was intended to proscribe. I do not believe it was the “God damns” that have been largely replaced in modern invective by more offensive speech. After all, “God damn” is formally a prayer. A flawed, self-centered prayer, but a prayer never the less. No, I believe that the usage was the casual elaboration of “I promise…” to “With God as my witness, I promise… .” For indeed, we may well find that God is a witness against us. Indeed, there's evidence to this in Jeremiah:
Jeremiah 5:1–2 (RSV) Run to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, look and take note! Search her squares to see if you can find a man, one who does justice and seeks truth; that I may pardon her. Though they say, “As the LORD lives,” yet they swear falsely.
And this leads us to a second commentary on the first commandment, which shares much with Jesus's, in the Epistle of James:James 5:12 (RSV) But above all, my brethren, do not swear, either by heaven or by earth or with any other oath, but let your yes be yes and your no be no, that you may not fall under condemnation.
And while James is placid and magisterial, Paul of Tarsus knows how difficult this really is,Romans 7:15 (RSV) I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.
It is not easy to set aside traditional patterns of language and attitude to account for a new truths, for habituation has a powerful hold on us. This difficulty accounts for much of the strident attitude by modern advocates of political correctness. Self policing our words and deeds is hard, as we undermine ourselves thoughtlessly and continuously. Paul was right, and we need to pray.
May our words and deeds conform to our beliefs. Amen.
Peace
5 comments:
Well, I think the whole point of Paul is that we can't do this.
And Luther and Calvin argue for TOTAL depravity of the human condition.
Isn't this Pelagianism, slipping back, to think that we can achieve this?
We can barely understood the Good, through prayer. We can never embody it. Jesus himself says that we can't every embody it, and when his helpers ask him if they shouldn't separate the wheat and the chaff, he says, you guys don't know the difference.
Wait until the harvest, and I will do it.
You keep arguing that we can take on God's nature. I keep arguing that we can't.
Political correctness is even worse because it is a Marxist phenomenon that insists our language should be coded by the all-knowing state, and that we should be in accord with its edicts.
This is not only a violation of human nature, but of the first amendment.
Kirby,
Well, I think the whole point of Paul is that we can't do this.
We certainly can't do it by ourselves. We cannot acheive perfection. But we can improve, especially if we pray for God's help and guidance. Your attitude seems to be that if we can't be perfect, why try? This is moral defeatism.
Isn't this Pelagianism, slipping back, to think that we can achieve this?
No. Pelagianism is believing that "mortal will can choose good or evil without divine aid." There are things we can do, and we believe that God is aiding us.
You keep arguing that we can take on God's nature. I keep arguing that we can't.
This misconstrues my argument. I believe that God's spirit can work through us. This is not us taking on God, it is God animating us. The difference in agency is everything.
This is not only a violation of human nature, but of the first amendment.
Political correctness does not have the force of law. Indeed, arguing that our words and deeds should be in accord with our beliefs should work as well for conservatives as liberals.
Political correctness in universities does try to have the force of law. See Duke University lacrosse lynching.
That is, political correctness thinks it is the law, and sometimes gets District Attorneys to play along.
So far, though, the law itself has begged to differ, and those who have assayed this merger have found themselves without a job.
Let's pray that continues!
I do follow your logic, but I still don't think it's possible. That may be defeatism on my part.
I side with the side of Luther that urges us to always see or try to see in what ways we are fallen, and in what ways even in our supposedly best moments, we are really at our worst.
i grew up with goddam this goddam that it was a colloquial expression ranchers and old cowhands used it with the penache of a salt and pepper aficianado in montana
shit and goddam were part of my hearing
recently a monk a good friend reminded me of how foul my mouth sounded when i first came to the monastery how swearing seemed to come too easily for me
it's taken awhile but now i see why language needs to be sacralized somewhat
and that sacralization amounts to a certain genuineness a correlation between heart and mouth and mind
yet the cursing nature in OT narratives is pronounced such that translators were often stymied by doubt as to the veracity of terms or ideas but sure enough those jews of old utilized foul expressions to refer to egyptians canaanites greeks and just about any group that threatened the jews -syrians babylonlyonians all described with terminolgy approaching the suggestion of feces of wild dogs and rotten eggs and fetid water and devouring cats and wretched whining scraggly dogs
augustines argument against pelagianism kirby does not take into question the inherent good in the being of man but rather questions the force of will required to pray or to bring about good - the early intuition about this was a resounding no there' is nothing we can do to inspire ourselves to pray or to resolve to live life in a moral and respectful way - soemthing else has to happen
the pelagian thing was the first selfhelp book the first just follow these 5 easy principles and you can attain to the balance and the happiness you seek and cash in on the possibility of heaven to boot
pelgians today are the workout queens and nuevospiritualist health trade feel good businesses
wierd thing about it
they've proven themselves important
people do feel better when they meditate when they stretch when they breathe hard for awhile when they eat well
i appreciate your qualification of the stern imperative of james with the ridiculous honesty of paul
stu
i am continually in amazement to myself
but as i age as i attain to something that looks like wisdom i find that i can surf with andromeda strain and ride the soft winds of autumn
without much collateral damage
ideally i think being a christian must come as a surprise for people who aren't expecting it
what?
you're a christian?
hell yeah i say
best damn gig in town
i'm a catholic
we got fashion going on
we got great books
we got hip rituals
we got some great music
and some pathetic music i admit
we got kinky sex narratives
we got old ladies with rosaries
we got great art
we got public service
we got coffee and cake after mass
but in montana i still hear people
blubber out swear words like the sudden breeze even right after church lets out
just now a fire alarm has started
it is the music of the modern age
the drones of technomanagement
worse than foul language
but somehow accepted
one criticism about christians even one that has been lodged at me is that there is this fake effort to be kind christians take on this attitude that is just too sweet -- and i think to some extent that is true there is a given docility in the act of saying i am christian a willingness to give in to utter mystery i suppose a willingness to be "taught" the things pertaining to our redemption -- and then the more you know the more mysterious it all becomes
thanks for this stu
kirby errs on the side of inane conflict
you seem to err on the side of
genuine substantiated christian searching -- both treacherous and perilous paths -- i admire you both
jh
jh,
It's great to have you back, and commenting.
i grew up with goddam this goddam that it was a colloquial expression ranchers and old cowhands used it with the penache of a salt and pepper aficianado in montana
I know what you mean. At some point, mild invective becomes little more than an oral comma, intended to convey general toughness on the part of the speaker.
it's taken awhile but now i see why language needs to be sacralized somewhat
I'm on the same page. The tone of language reflects a stance. Those salt-and-pepper swear words express a kind of rebelliousness, or even generalized anger. If people stopped to really think about it, they'd realize that what they're really saying is, "I might be tough, but I'm the real victim here." Or, less frequently in the mouth of the victimizer, it's intended to convey, "I might be rich, but I'm still tough, and I'm really one of you." The last half of the later is a lie, of course, which is why you don't hear the powerful swear as often as the powerless.
But are we really the victims here? Theologically, we're all sinners, and Christ alone is the victim. So swearing is really nothing more than a murderer's protestation of innocence. Our language should be humbler, and simpler, as befits penitents.
one criticism about christians even one that has been lodged at me is that there is this fake effort to be kind christians take on this attitude that is just too sweet -- and i think to some extent that is true there is a given docility in the act of saying i am christian a willingness to give in to utter mystery i suppose a willingness to be "taught" the things pertaining to our redemption -- and then the more you know the more mysterious it all becomes
Yeah, I'd like to avoid treacle too. A choice to consistently avoid conflict, to use smooth words to paper over real differences, that isn't a truly Christian path either. We're not going to change the world if our words convey a satisfaction with the world as it is.
Thank you very much for your thoughts!
Post a Comment