When to Break the Protocol of Decorum
Nine times out of ten, the coarse word is the word that condemns an evil, and the refined word the word that excuses it.
The Christian NPR Voice
Evangelicalisms’ absurd obsession with decorum has neutered our ability to speak with directness and courage. The acceptable range of Christian speech has been so narrowed that Jesus himself could get rebuked for speaking too harshly.
No one could read through the Bible and conclude that Christians are supposed to always speak in a maximally sweet, monotone NPR voice. There’s a broad range of acceptable Christian discourse, and wise Christians learn how to make full use of it.
At the PCA General Assembly a few weeks ago, pastor Timothy Brindle stepped up to the microphone to voice a concern about sinful partiality. He spoke calmly and respectfully. But he was exhorted by the moderator to speak with decorum and temperance.
To my ears, Brindle was speaking with appropriate candor and respect while addressing a serious problem. As it often goes in such cases, the man exposing the problem gets corrected for his manner of speaking while the problem itself gets ignored.
GK Chesterton said it well: “Nine times out of ten, the coarse word is the word that condemns an evil, and the refined word the word that excuses it.”
I’m not against decorum or temperance. Spirit filled wisdom should govern Christian speech. But gracious speech is not the only issue in play. Sometimes, the protocol of decorum must be broken to shed light on bigger problems.
Nowadays, when a Christian speaks forcefully about some sin or doctrinal error, knee-jerk Christians assume he’s speaking sinfully. They assume hard words are always sinful and soft words are always righteous.
Those are false assumptions.
Words are tools. We use words to communicate meaning, and different jobs require different tools. Most of the time, as I’ve argued elsewhere, gentle words are the way to go. But sometimes, hard words are needed. Sometimes, soft words are even harmful. When correcting false teachers, for example, Paul told Titus to “rebuke them sharply,” (not gently; Titus 1:13). If you rebuke a false teacher gently, your soft tone undermines the urgency of your message.
Thus, Christians have a wide range of rhetorical tools at our disposal, and we need to wield them wisely. This requires careful thought and the wisdom of scripture. Here’s a simple rubric I use.
Gentleness is the Default Mode of Christian Speech
Proverbs 15:1 says, “A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.” As a general rule, harsh speech ticks people off and soft speech cools them down.
Galatians 6:1 says, “Brothers, if anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore him in a spirit of gentleness.” When correcting someone in error, most of the time, do it gently. That’s the default.
So far, so good. But be careful with this. “Gentleness” is highly subjective, so you should be hesitant to impose your standard of gentleness on someone else, especially if you’re a sensitive person. Gentleness doesn’t mean you have to sound like you’re hosting a show on NPR.
Modern Evangelicalism’s Preference for Feminine Coded Speech
Men speak more directly than women, so women are more likely to be uncomfortable with masculine speech. Women speak more gently, contributing to the false perception that feminine speech is more godly. But in this way, our public discourse is governed by the feminine preference for comfort, politeness, and indirectness.
Many Christians now live by the hidden assumption that godly speech is feminine. If you speak directly like a man, you’re probably out of line and need to tone it down. If your masculine speech offends a woman, you’re clearly in the wrong. Her taking offense is the only evidence needed, because feminine sensibilities are taken as gospel.
This hidden rule has now been so thoroughly massaged into evangelicalism that truly masculine speech sounds scandalous to our ears. Not because it’s wrong, but because we’ve become so conditioned by feminine modes of discourse. But no one wants it admit this openly. Thus, we disguise our feminine-coded verbal preferences with words like “decorum.” Again, decorum is good in its proper place, but sometimes the situation calls for the protocol of decorum to be broken.
The evangelical preference for feminine discourse is enforced by “weaker brothers” with tender consciences who are easily offended by uncomfortably blunt speech. Their standard of godly speech is feminine-coded, leading them to correct those who speak with masculine directness. They assume directness, strong language, sarcasm, or even mockery can never be Christlike. Thus, they bind the consciences of others for the sake of their own comfort.
But just because you’re uncomfortable with the way someone else is speaking doesn’t make them wrong. You may not want to speak that way yourself, but that’s fine. It’s a conscience issue. Two people may choose to use different verbal tools without passing judgment on one another (Rom 14:4).
So, as you can see, an “always soft, never hard” approach to Christian speech is insufficient. Sometimes elevated rhetoric is necessary to communicate the urgency and force the situation requires.
Three Rules of Thumb
My baseline approach to communication is situational. When I’m with other men, we speak directly, using sarcasm and hyperbole, challenging and confronting each other, and making fun of each other. This is good for men. Male communication is competitive. Men like to establish hierarchies just for fun.
But when I’m with women or in a mixed group, I’ll exercise some restraint. I hold back a little. Generally, it’s good for men to honor women by restraining themselves around them. What’s appropriate for a men’s night around a campfire may not be appropriate for a mixed Bible study in your living room.
When Christian truth is at stake or a sin needs correction, gentleness is the default mode of speaking to them (Gal 6:1). However, some situations call for elevated rhetoric. Sometimes we need to put a little mustard on our words to get a point across. How do we know when to do that?
The following rules of thumb have been helpful to me to think through times when its more necessary to speak more forcefully than I otherwise would.
Speak hard words when you’re correcting someone who is hard hearted and unrepentant.
In other words: soft words make hard hearts; hard words make soft hearts. If someone is humble and contrite about their sin, then the Holy Spirit has softened their heart already. They don’t need hard words to awaken their conscience. But if someone is hard hearted and their conscience is deadened in their sin, hard words may the tool the Spirit uses to awaken them to repentance.
Speak hard words when the sin you’re correcting is particularly egregious, even though they may be humble and repentant.
Elevated rhetoric may be needed to warn a contrite person to not repeat their error. For example, if someone commits adultery and humbly confesses it right away, the seriousness of the sin itself merits a strong rebuke anyway. Even if he or she is truly contrite.
Speak hard words to warn other people to not follow the sins or errors of someone else.
Repentance typically needs to be as public as the sin itself. That’s why false teaching/teachers need to be corrected just as publicly as the error being corrected. For example, is someone posts a serious error on social media and someone calls them out for it, they shouldn’t just delete the post. That’s an insufficient face-saving measure. Rather, they should acknowledge the error by posting a statement of retraction. This is necessary for the protection of those who were influenced by the original error and need to know it was wrong.
When an error or sin is private, Matthew 18 is the way to go. Correct your brother in private. When an error or sin is public, he must be corrected in public. If the teacher is truly repentant, then he should have no problem correcting it publicly to prevent the error from spreading.
Wolves Love a Rhetorically Castrated Church
This third rule of thumb merits one final point. False teachers thrive around soft-spoken Christians. The directness of masculine speech is good for accountability. Hard words keep wolves away. Soft words invite them in. A church that insists on female-coded communication all the time will create an ideal environment for wolves to devour their prey. Wolves love being in churches where Christians are too weak and timid to correct them.
The #1 tactic of wolves is to dull the blade of Christian truth. They hide behind nice sounding ambiguities. They conceal error with warm platitudes. They manipulate with sweet flatteries. They have a strong aversion to confronting sin directly and forcefully. Ravenous wolves can be some of the nicest, most mild-mannered people you will ever meet.
These cuddle-wolves gain ear-tickling influence by urging compassion and gentleness towards sins the Bible says we should sternly warn against. This spirit of “niceness” enables high-handed rebellion against God in modern churches. And this is a big reason why the modern church is impotent. We think Christlikeness should always sound like a Hallmark card.
This over-concern with decorum is a blight on the church. If the devil himself were to blaspheme Jesus Christ in our presence, some people would do little more than sheepishly say “that’s not appropriate. If you’re going to blaspheme Christ, please do so with more kindness and respect.”
Conclusion
The bottom line is this: we should stop making harsh speech a matter of blanket prohibition, assuming it’s always sinful. And we should stop making gentle speech a matter of blanket prescription, assuming it’s always righteous.
These are matters of wisdom. We’ll land in different places on where to draw the line for ourselves, and that’s OK.
My point is that we shouldn’t be so quick to assume the person speaking hard, direct, pointed words is always doing something wrong. It’s quite possible he’s the only one with the guts to say what the urgency of the moment requires. Perhaps he should be commended, not criticized.
Excellent article & very helpful!! Fully agree!
Excellent