Why Tone Matters for Christians in Public Discourse
“What the ‘facts don’t care about your feelings’ and ‘the truth matters more than how it makes you feel’ crowd often fail to appreciate is that while they’re often at pains to tell us that they’re speaking this way from a place of love, they could’ve fooled us. From where many of us sit, it kind of seems like the other thing.” - Dale Chamberlain
- 2 views
One of the things I learned from being a school teacher and a parent, among other relationships, is that tone says things. For the hearer, tone makes assertions all by itself, and those assertions may not be what you want to say at all. They may contradict your words, and in some cases, when tone and words conflict, tone wins.
It’s easier than we might think to say “I care about you and am trying to help you” with our words but say “I despise you and think I’m better than you” with our tone. I often found with students and children especially, that all they heard was tone, and if they’re busy being hurt and offended, our words of wisdom are worthless.
Reminds me of 1 Cor 13.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Reminds me of:
“It is quite useless to approach a man with both a club and an argument. He will very naturally be in no mood to appreciate our argument until we lay aside our club.” Machen
That’s good. As in J. Gresham Machen?
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Tone does in fact matter. I don’t think there’s much room for disagreement…unless we apply the same standards to other forms of communication.
I distinctly recall speaking in angry and caustic tones being justified on SI because that’s how Jesus talked at specific moments of his ministry. Only this was in the context of justifying certain music styles.
Are we at the point now where we are all in agreement that all forms of non-verbal communication are subject to Biblical commands and principles?
If so, that’s a very good thing.
[Aaron Blumer]That’s good. As in J. Gresham Machen?
The one and only. Another of his I like:
“It is usually considered good practice to examine a thing for one’s self before echoing the vulgar ridicule of it. But in connection with the Bible, such scholarly restraints are somehow regarded as out of place.”
Social Media is not designed to encourage constructive interaction. I do want to write my comments in a way that encourages thoughtful response not an exchange of hand grenades.
[KD Merrill]Tone does in fact matter. I don’t think there’s much room for disagreement…unless we apply the same standards to other forms of communication.
I distinctly recall speaking in angry and caustic tones being justified on SI because that’s how Jesus talked at specific moments of his ministry. Only this was in the context of justifying certain music styles.
Are we at the point now where we are all in agreement that all forms of non-verbal communication are subject to Biblical commands and principles?
If so, that’s a very good thing.
You raise some important points. What about Jesus, and rebuke in general?
Part of the answer lies in considering what you’re trying to achieve, and maybe most of the rest is who you’re speaking to. Rebuke can be effective when a) talking to the wise or b) sending a message to people other than the “rebukee.”
This could be a whole article… or several. But these passages help I think:
1 A wise son hears his father’s instruction, but a scoffer does not listen to rebuke. (Pr 13:1)
10 A rebuke goes deeper into a man of understanding than a hundred blows into a fool. (Pr 17:10)
1 Do not rebuke an older man but encourage him as you would a father, younger men as brothers, …. 20 As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. (1 Ti 5:1–20)
But I think it’s important to note here that there’s often a difference between rebuke and condemnation. And rebuke is also not the same thing as self righteous arrogance. There’s the rebuke of a friend, as we find in Proverbs in several passages, and then there’s the rebuke of the prophet who is pronouncing judgment. The prophet has the authority of ‘thus says the Lord’ (not just in reference to truth but in reference to someone’s opportunity for mercy coming to an end). The rest of us generally don’t.
But there’s also the self righteous rebuke of the person who has forgotten that his target is a human being and he himself is also a sinner. So Jesus says the righteious one should cast the first stone.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
One wonders if accusing one side of “not caring about the truth” is a tone that helps discourse.
Same principles would apply. If we’re trying to have a conversation with someone or engage in a real debate, telling them they aren’t interested in truth isn’t going to be effective. If the situation is more along the lines of 1 Tim 5:20 the “rebukees” are not really the audience. So it’s about warning people away from third parties.
It also matters how we get there. You can arrive at a judgment slowly and reluctantly because people’s behavior leaves you no responsible alternative or you can start there and never even listen, or somewhere in between. These days, there’s a ton of “categorize first then listen for confirmation” rather than “listen and observe first, then categorize.”
As far as the social-political spectrum from left to right goes—and probably any other spectrum, for that matter—you have people looking for truth at both ends and everywhere in between. But also some who have made it pretty obvious that truth is not a priority for them. They may even say so directly sometimes. With public figures who do a lot of communicating, publicly lying multiple times a week makes it pretty obvious. And they become third parties to warn others against. Like Paul’s “wolves” (Acts 20:29), John and Jesus’ “snakes” (Matt 3:7, 23:33), Jude’s “waterless clouds” (Jude 12).
Going back to the article, the tone problem in view has multiple pieces: the emphasis piece (sometimes 90+% of the communication is fault-finding), the “begin with hostility and never even look for points of agreement” piece, the “look for ways to coerce rather than persuade” piece, and the broad-brushing/overgeneralizing that goes on all the time. The “preaching to the choir”/stoking the base piece.
I don’t know where “caring about the truth” fits into that mix—other than where public figures who do almost nothing but fault-finding regularly and boldly lie in their characterizations of people and situations. These clearly are not looking for truth, only for more followers or more passionate followers (and more donors and/or voters).
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
Discussion