Pronouns and Complicity
Building or burning bridges
Language is being twisted yearly to comply with political correctness. For me, it is simplest and perhaps wisest to simply shrug, smile, and comply.
Admittedly, it is not easy to keep up with all the changes. A few years ago, I was teaching at an event and referred to an “oriental” worldview. Several people afterward stated, “Hey, it’s ‘Asian.’ People quit using ‘oriental’ years ago. It’s like using the ‘N’ word.”
But what about pronouns? Does that fall in the same category? Should we comply so as not to offend? Depends on the context. For example, if we are with family, it may be a matter of accommodating simply to keep communicating.
One mother told me how extremely difficult it was to use feminine pronouns for her son’s sake. Certainly there is a sense of loss which comes with a child’s choice to transition. That loss needs to be grieved. But her main reason? “I don’t want him to think I agree with all of this!”
“Does he already know how you feel about transitioning?” I asked. And, of course, he did—very clearly, in fact. That being the case, I encouraged her to grieve when and where appropriate, but to comply in order to maintain the relationship. Three years later, that approach has borne much good fruit.
In ministry with someone seeking help, I do the same. Right out of the gate, I communicate that God loves them and so do I. Whether a parishioner or counselee, I will gently let them know we aren’t on the same page when the timing calls for it. But I quickly follow with eager assurance that I care about them. In those instances, my role is simply to be a channel of God’s presence. God will do the convincing in his time.
Context may well make it necessary to comply simply to build bridges with the broken. Our culture is so polarized, people are looking for reasons to write us off as uncaring. So I try to keep the communication lines open.
But there are most definitely times when we must adamantly refuse.
Recently, I was listening to a podcast of Jordan Peterson interviewing Rod Dreher about his book Live Not by Lies: A Manual for Christian Dissidents. A few lights went on for me.
Dreher had previously published The Benedict Option: A Strategy for Christians in a Post-Christian Nation where he was preparing churches for a coming “soft totalitarianism.” While still writing this in 2015, he sounded like a kooky alarmist. Seven years later, in the midst of cancel culture, he now seems a prophet.
The totalitarianism of the Nazis and Communists in the previous century was anything but “soft.” They used fear and force to get their way. As mentioned in a previous blog, the totalitarianism we face is “soft” in that no one is being tortured or sent to a gulag. Instead there is a stripping away of comfort, convenience, and financial security through intimidation, cancelation, dismissal, and expulsion. In many professions, the pressure is very real. Resistance is costly.
So do we always fly under the radar? And if not, when do we stand our ground?
Dreher’s book borrows its title from Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn who advised those under oppression to live not by lies—that is, do not speak lies in order to spare yourself from consequences. Live in the truth.
There will be times when living in the truth means using pronouns correctly. It is a refusal to comply with the twisting of language and meaning.
If you’ve read Orwell’s 1984, you might remember the totalitarian practice of changing the meanings of words—a practice called “newspeak.” Winston Smith, the main character, lived in a dirty, overcrowded apartment complex called Victory Mansions, and worked for the government’s propaganda institute known as The Ministry of Truth. Prominent party slogans to keep people in line included “Freedom is Slavery,” and “Ignorance is Strength!” Twisting words and distorting meaning helped to hide in plain sight the machinations of those in power.
To live not by lies means to refuse to play that game, no matter the consequences. And to be sure, there will be consequences.
As costly as living the truth might be, Dreher and Peterson state that there are consequences for being silent as well. That is as true today as it was in Soviet Russia. Silence is not only complicity, it also brings with it an enormous cost to family, church, and nation.
To raise children in a world where girls must compete against biological males will eventually ruin women’s sports. Encouraging teens to experiment sexually to better understand their inclinations will bring about untold pain to marriages and families in the future. And confusing toddlers about whether they are boys or girls will bring with it an unimaginable cost to the next generation.
Great discernment is needed to know when to build bridges, and when to stand on the bridge as it burns.
As for me, my role as pastor and counselor compels me, in most situations, to speak peace to the confused. But as a writer[1] who has a voice within my part of the United Methodist Church, I am learning when and how best to speak truth to power.
May God grant us all much wisdom!
[1] And in the future, as I write this blog, I will be referring to biological males with masculine pronouns and females with feminine. My apologies in advance to Lia and Caitlyn.
Using someone's preferred pronouns doesn't bother me, as long as I can remember to do it. I'm forgetful, not antagonistic. Honestly, when I read 1984, what I came away with was a fear of "alternative facts" as Kellyanne Conway so famously said. We're living in a world where something can clearly take place in plain sight, and yet, there will still be deniers of basic facts.
The way I learned it was, People from the far east are Asian. Things from the far east oriental. So you can have an oriental rug made by an Asian weaver. ;)
These are good words you share Mark. Discernment is hard work and some people don't want to do the work so they either comply or stubbornly refuse. I think both of those options are self-centered instead of others-centered.