Taming the Tongue: How Do We Talk to Each Other in an Election Year?

On October 9, a video surfaced on social media of the comments of a KU lecturer named Phillip Lowcock. They were of a political nature, basically that anyone who would not vote for a woman should be executed. The response was swift to his comments. He was immediately placed on administrative leave, and political voices around the state weighed in on his punishment, and this week a free speech group on campus asked the Chancellor to rescind any discipline for what they say is protected speech.

It is a complicated issue, is it not? Really a set of issues: there are questions of freedom of speech, cancel culture, academic freedom, and should state employees have to answer to taxpayers or at least the legislators who represent them? It is also complicated by the fact that this was a political comment, in the midst of a very anxious political year, evoking political immediate response.

And somewhere, the writer of the book of James was saying, “I told you so.” This morning, I actually don’t plan to spend much time talking about the specifics of this case in general. Instead, the Two-Way [Sermon Discussion Group] named it as a great “ripped from the headlines” example of what is happening in Chapter 3, and the power of speech. Really, it is an introduction to ask if you have regretted something you said? Ever? In the last week? Today? James’s point is that we cannot take that stuff back. Once we say it, it is said. The first spark of a forest fire is lit. The rudder has driven us into the sandbar. The bridle has led the horse off a cliff. The words that we say matter.

And I would add a layer that James could not have anticipated: social media. Our tongues are now the tips of our fingers, as we type our messages. In some ways, it is even worse than James’s day. When we don’t communicate face to face, our communication can become even more harsh…dangerous…”devilish,” as James would say. When we share a meme, or like a post, or write a strongly worded digital message, we are communicating. But unlike face-to-face communication, with verbal and nonverbal communication, digital communication strips out a lot of that interaction. We have no nonverbal feedback to discern how to adjust that message mid-stream. And the result can be disastrous. Because of social media, relationships have been changed or even ended. Children and youth have engaged in self-harm as the result of cyber-bullying. And especially during a contentious political campaign, like the one we are in, anger and fear have been raised to a fever pitch.

And somewhere, James is saying, “well, obviously.”

For James, this isn’t about cultural context, but the church context. Church folks were using speech in some pretty devastating ways. James writes in the next chapter about “conflicts and disputes among  you.” And while we don’t know exactly what those disputes are, we could guess. A couple thousand years of church fights and disagreements are all the example we need that it happens. When people are involved, conflict will be involved. But the point that James is trying to make is that it should be different in the church. We ought to have a different way of doing things. Our speech should be different.

A few weeks ago in the Daniel series, I quoted a guy named Lee Camp, who made a similar point. In his little book on how Christians are to engage in the world, he writes “Christian Partisanship is like a Fistfight on the Titanic.” In other words, no political nation is eternal. Why do we spend more energy fighting each other over partisan differences, than we do working for the eternal Kingdom of God?

Now, Camp says a lot more in his book, and maybe I am doing him a disservice in how I represent him…he is not anti-American, nor does he suggest that we put our heads in the sand and ignore political stuff happening around us. I know that some of you have been deeply involved in politics, and maybe still are, and Camp doesn’t demean that work at all. But his larger point is that for Christians, we need to examine our allegiances, our relationship, our speech….and have a larger perspective. A different way of doing things. The point that Camp tries to make is that God is still on God’s throne…and will be on November 6th.  No political nation is eternal. God is.

So, this is Camp’s point, James’s point, and I would say Jesus’s point. In the Gospel reading this morning, we read of Jesus telling a parable about a fruit tree. He said that a healthy tree produces healthy fruit and an unhealthy tree produces unhealthy fruit. Bad fruit. He goes on to say that the words that we say outwardly are the fruit of what exists on the inside. James takes this parable of Jesus and creates a midrash, or teaching on it. A sermon based on Jesus’s sermon. An elaboration and interpretation for his context. James/Jesus want us to use speech as a way to examine what is happening inside us. Why do we say these things? Are we afraid, and so we use these words as a way to respond to some threat? Are we feeling helpless and powerless, and so words, especially putting down others, can make us feel more powerful? Are we angry, so these words come out of us like fire? James says it this way:

Who is wise and understanding among you? Let them show it by their good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. Such “wisdom” does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.

See the connection between his words and Jesus’s? Look at what is happening on the inside because it is reflecting on the outside. Envy. Selfish ambition. Bitterness. The Greco-Roman culture of the day held these values in high regard. Humility was seen as weakness. Boasting was a sign of intellectual strength. A fistfight on the Titanic. But then Jesus comes along and preaches meekness and humility and James echoes that sermon to his audience. James says that there is a way to filter this stuff, to discern what is happening inside of us, to deal with that internal stuff in healthy ways, and then speak externally in ways that are constructive not destructive.

First Baptist knows of church disagreement, too. A few years ago, we had a complicated and emotional conversation about what our policy was to be concerning same-sex marriage. I say “conversation” like it was just one, but it really was a series of conversations about how we would structure the larger conversation, and then we had formal conversations together, and then we had a vote and had more conversations afterwards. And it was hard. And some people decided that they couldn’t stay members here afterwards. And that was hard. A lot of us still grieve that pain.

Now, there were a lot of folks who saw that process—from the outside or within—and said that it was really good and healthy and James 3 stuff. I want to put up a series of “ground rules” that the graceful engagement team used as we engaged in conversations around this issue. I won’t read every word, but I use it as a reference to say that I think the team did a really good job of trying to engage in James 3 work.

Ground Rules for Graceful Engagement Conversations:

1. We are gathered to support each other’s learning by giving and receiving grace. We speak only for ourselves by using “I” statements.
2. We are striving to be present as fully as possible, including our doubts and fears as well as our convictions and joys, listening as well as speaking.
3. We offer our viewpoints and questions by invitation, not demand. No responses are mandated.
4. We speak our truth in ways that respect everyone’s viewpoint with honest, open questions. There is no fixing, advising, or setting each other straight.
5. We trust and learn from silence as we attend our own intuition. When the going gets tough, we turn to wonder and ask ourselves, “What does my reaction say about me?”
6. We observe deep confidentiality. We do not talk about anyone in the circle with someone outside the circle regarding anything shared in the circle.
7. We understand that for some, this is a Gospel issue, and are aware that our conduct and decisions will affect individuals in our church family that we love.

That said, there were folks who also felt like it wasn’t enough, and they felt like their voice wasn’t heard, that their concerns were ignored. So, after that conversation, we ended up having some more conversations to learn and discern how we could have done better. So, I bring all of this up during a sermon about taming the tongue to say that this stuff isn’t simple. And it isn’t easy. James says as much when he writes near the beginning of the chapter, “for all of us make many mistakes.” None of us are perfect at this stuff. I think that the team did well, and yet some still felt left out of the process. Even in the church, where we are meant to have a certain level of agreement, we still disagree.

But, James says, “don’t give up.” This stuff is important. Paying attention to our words, and how they impact others. Following ground rules like this. Or like this. I want to read an even simpler set of ground rules, from the book of James:

But the wisdom that comes from heaven is first of all pure; then peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit, impartial and sincere. Peacemakers who sow in peace reap a harvest of righteousness.

What if every time we engaged in a hard conversation, we read these verses? Every time we posted or made a comment on social media? Every potentially emotional email that we sent? It doesn’t mean that we wouldn’t send those things. I am not saying that we should disengage social media, or even disengage about complex issues, or political disagreements, or ideological differences. But I think that James is inviting us to engage differently.

The 838 service shared sermon this morning helped me with a new insight to the text. Each of the metaphors that James uses about the power of the tongue seems intentionally ambiguous. Yes, a fire can cause serious damage, and a rudder or horse’s bit can steer its driver into destruction. Yet, each is also capable of amazing constructive power. A fire can cook our food, or create tools. A bit can steer a horse to deliver medicine for a child in need. A rudder can take a ship of explorers to new lands. While the tongue is capable of great damage, it is also capable of great beauty, strength, or salvation. May we find ourselves bearing the fruit of healthy and holy speech, lifting one another up, inspiring each other to great service, and worshipping God with our whole hearts!