Before launching into this post, I need to acknowledge that I struggle with my words. In my writings, I wrestle publicly with ideas in the hopes of arriving at some clarity. That doesn’t mean that I have everything figured out. In the case of “taming the tongue” I have a long way to go.
My favorite author is G. K. Chesterton, who possessed the unique ability to lay waste to a mountain of foolishness with one razor-sharp aphorism. For instance, he once said, “Tolerance is the virtue of people who do not believe in anything.” This is true, but it also bites. This is why Chesterton is revered by many but reviled by some. I will never be Chesterton, but in my juvenile attempts to emulate him, it is tempting for me to put the bite over and above the truth. I’ve always been drawn to those who are eloquent in the language of irony and sarcasm, to those who are skilled at fighting with their words. Venkman in Ghostbusters. Stark in Avengers. Solo in Star Wars. I know that doesn’t make me special. Those are most people’s favorite characters. I’m merely recognizing that to actually live like these characters will invite trouble.
It is with that necessary preface, then, that I offer this brief meditation on Ephesians 4:29.
“Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.”
I want you to imagine this scenario. There is a particular group of people who understand the word SIMON to be deeply insulting. It is a slur of the highest order. Susan is from this group of people. Charlie is her coworker, but he is from a different group of people. He comes from a group of people who understand SIMON to be a rather mundane description of a person who enjoys outdoor activities. One day, Susan is telling Charlie about her weekend plans. She is looking forward to going on a float trip in a local river with friends. Charlie, matter-of-factly, observes that she must be a SIMON.
This comment immediately destroys their relationship and ends with Charlie visiting HR. In this scenario, who was in the wrong? Some would say Charlie is wrong because impact matters more than intent. It doesn’t matter if he was ignorant, his words were still harmful. Some would say Susan is wrong. She is being overly sensitive because intent matters more than impact. This is a difficult question.
On the one hand, passages like Ephesians 4:29 weigh our words according to their impact. Paul parallels “unwholesome talk” with “helpful for building others up.” In other words, we ought to always speak in such ways that build others up. This matches what we learn about the use of words in books like Proverbs where we are told to consider the impact of the words that we use. A passage like Proverbs 26:18-19 (NIV) rejects the notion that intent should trump impact.
“Like a maniac shooting flaming arrows of death is one who deceives their neighbor and says, ‘I was only joking!’”
“Like a maniac shooting flaming arrows of death is one who deceives their neighbor and says, ‘I was only joking!’”
You could argue that this is unlike the scenario above because these verses imply that there is negative intent along with negative impact. Maybe, but it is safe to conclude that a Christian way of using words never acts as if impact doesn’t matter. A Christian way of using words is, at the very least, open and sensitive to the ways that words can either build up or destroy regardless of our intent. 
On the other hand, arguing that impact matters more than intent has its own problems. The nature of much of our communication is that it will leave us unsettled and challenged. Taken to its extreme, a person could argue that the mere act of saying “you’re wrong” is offensive and therefore, inappropriate. It starts to look and feel like emotional blackmail where we use our emotional state to hold another person’s thoughts and words hostage.
A quick way to win every argument is by accusing the other person of using harmful words or tones. “That’s offensive” becomes a cheap surrogate for an intelligent argument. In 2 Timothy 4:3, Paul warned Timothy about the type of person who won’t put up with sound doctrine because they insist on hearing only what their itching ears want to hear. Privileging impact over intent can make communicative acts like preaching or teaching improper.
“‘That’s offensive’ becomes a cheap surrogate for an intelligent argument.”
We should reflect on the fact that “benefit” in Ephesians 4:29 does not mean that all communication must be sweet or even nice. “Benefit” does not mean that we only tell people what they want to hear or that we must avoid any language that bites. Consider that dogs are attracted to anti-freeze because it smells and tastes sweet, but it is deadly toxic. In the same way, sweet-sounding, nice words can be the furthest thing from beneficial. The most dangerous person is not the harsh person, but the person who compliments you with sweet-sounding poisons.
So, what’s the solution? Well, I think that healthy communication can happen only when both parties are committed to both grace and truth.
First, every act of communication requires the extension of common grace to each other. The person on the side of intent should measure his words carefully according to how much harm they might cause. In this respect, communication is about genuine care for the conversation partner, not just winning a debate. The person on the impact side should likewise extend grace. We are all going to screw up with our words. Knowing this, we should avoid quickly assigning malice to those we are talking to. Why assume the worst about our conversation partners? Would we want to be held to that same standard? I’ll also add that becoming a person who regularly looks for reasons to be offended is not beneficial to you. Other people will start to see you as a fragile and insecure person. They will either stop talking to you altogether or they will stop telling you the truth.
“Every act of communication requires the extension of common grace to each other.”
Second, every act of communication requires a commitment to the truth even when that truth causes discomfort. Unfortunately, a lot of people have lost their faith in language to communicate anything true. Postmodernity has severed the connection between words and truth. Instead, words are mere tools of power. When that’s the case, we stop making efforts to use our words to convince and use our words simply to dominate. We don’t make arguments; we have arguments. And when we start to lose the argument, we revert to emotional outbursts of either anger or offense.
Healthy communication requires all parties to be committed to truth. No one has the right to use impact to demand a lie. Preferred pronouns are a good example. A person who claims you must refer to a man as a woman is guilty of deconstructing language. They are demanding that you abandon truth because of the impact of your words. Communication will never be possible in such a culture. Eventually, people will grow tired of being policed and manipulated. They will come to ignore impact altogether as a result. You could argue that we are seeing exactly this with the childish and harmful revival of slurs like “retard.”
In sum, Ephesians 4:29 beckons us to be “others-minded” in our communication. One could argue this is at the heart of this whole section of Ephesians. Wherever you fall on intent versus impact, we make it our goal to communicate in such a way that we are always working for and hoping for the good of the other.
From chadragsdale.wordpress.com. Used with permission.
