Words

Words are powerful. They have the ability to encourage or crush people, to anger or soothe, to inspire or condemn, to incite hate or reach out in love – and much more besides. Although I realise that dogs bark and dolphins seem to have sophisticated ways of communicating with each other, nevertheless it is humans who have uniquely been given the capacity for complex and intelligent speech.

And speech is one of the things which define us. As soon as we open our mouths, those listening will start to make assumptions about us. Are we speaking in Welsh, English or another language? Do we have a regional accent – or one which may betray our social class? Do we use simple phrases and words, or do we prefer to weave intricate sentences? Is our speech peppered with swearwords, Latin aphorisms or simply that little word “like”, or do these rarely pass our lips? Our speech says a lot about us.

Of course, the most important part of what we say is its content. And it strikes me that we are living in a strange time. For on the one hand some folk will defend “free speech” to the limit, claiming that they possess the right to say whatever they like, irrespective of how others may be impacted or react. This was demonstrated by the “Je suis Charlie” campaign a few years ago. On the other hand, the words of public figures are examined by the media with a fine-toothed comb, seeking targets for criticism and controversy. Politicians find themselves having to justify or retract off-the-cuff statements made many years ago.

Another question which has come to the fore concerns what may be said in intellectual debate. Some universities have allegedly restricted robust discussions for fear of causing offence and hurt. This was considered so important last year that the Universities Minister wrote to vice-chancellors, reminding them that higher education institutions have a legal duty to ensure freedom of speech and expressing concern at policies of “safe spaces” and “no-platforming”.

I think that this issue also affects churches, both within and outside its walls. For it is very easy for Christian communities to adopt a “party line” on matters from the correct interpretation of Bible passages to the best way of running the Sunday School. People who dare to speak out are censured and marginalised; they even leave the church. Yet such an attitude is unhelpful, for “critical friends” can often provide fresh insights and suggest new ways of working. In any case it contradicts the example of Jesus, who was never afraid to challenge the religious “status quo”.

The big issue which provokes controversy outside the church walls is, of course, evangelism – an activity which Christians believe was mandated by Jesus as his final command. We regard evangelism as the sharing of good news; some secularists have called it a “hate crime”. Of course some street preaching has indeed been objectionable, even rabble-rousing: there are some fundamentalist Americans with whom I would not wish to associate. We do have to make sure that any offence caused by evangelism comes directly from our advocacy of the crucified Jesus, not by our crude put-downs of those with whom we disagree.

We are fortunate to live in a country where we don’t have to be too worried that every comment we make will be recorded for possible future use against us – although social media should be making us a little bit more cautious about what we say and write. I believe that free speech is important, although I would always set it alongside the need to be responsible in what we say, respecting other peoples’ beliefs and viewpoints. I agree with the Evangelical Alliance which recently asserted the importance of a public square “where individuals learn to live and work respectfully alongside one another despite their deepest differences”. It continued by saying that the  expression of those differences “can lead to richness and harmony in society rather than conflict and disunity”.  

I close by quoting from the eminent lawyer Stephen Sedley, who is passionately concerned with human rights and freedoms. Although a Humanist rather than a Christian, he vigorously defended a street evangelist who was brought to court by saying, “Free speech includes not only the inoffensive but the irritating, the contentious, the eccentric, the heretical, the unwelcome and the provocative provided it does not tend to provoke violence. Freedom only to speak inoffensively is not worth having”.

Those are, I think, wise words. To them I merely add St. Paul’s counsels that Christians’ speech should “always be gracious, seasoned with salt” and that we should “speak the truth – in love”.