Why All Believers Should Earn "A"s in English
Since Every Square Inch is all about how we as people of faith are supposed to engage our culture, I would like to examine an important skill that Christians need in order to counter the negative forces of our secular world.
The skill to which I refer is one that, I believe, most adults have. Unfortunately, many people acquire it far too late in life. It's a skill with which we are not born, so it must be taught. Yet our schoolchildren are not learning it soon enough. Few if any churches are teaching it, and though our public schools say they're trying, I can attest as a part-time college instructor that they are failing miserably. More importantly, in order to push their anti-Christian agenda, our media and educational institutions (especially colleges) abuse the fact that many of our young people lack this skill.
I'm referring to critical reading ability and the ability to recognize language manipulation and propaganda. It's a skill that we must begin to teach our children before they are old enough to be tricked and duped by today's savvy, deceptive secularists.
Consider a multiple-choice test question I recently saw in a college-level sociology course. It went something like this:
"A person who believes that homosexuality is immoral is called..."
According to the test developer, the correct answer is "prejudiced."
Unfortunately, many students will encounter this test item, answer it "correctly" because they've read the same statement word for word in their textbook, and never think about the implications of what they've just read. The subtle manipulation of language by the academic who wrote the question is a perfect example of how academicians abuse their power in order to indoctrinate students. It is not “prejudiced” to have a belief or an opinion about anything. If I were to treat a homosexual unfairly because of his or her sexual orientation, then yes, I would be acting with prejudice. But the wording of the test question is misleading and underhanded—and it brainwashes impressionable students who have not been taught to recognize such language manipulation.
I wonder how many of today’s students would see the question for what it is. I’m afraid that many of them would view the question as one of the easiest on the exam and think nothing of it, because today our students have been taught since elementary school that it is prejudiced to simply have the moral opinion that homosexuality is wrong. And that raises an interesting question: Is the academic who wrote the test item intentionally manipulating language, or is he just someone who is so far along in the cycle of educational indoctrination that he himself actually doesn’t know the difference between prejudice and having an opinion. Given that the definition of “prejudice” is really a pretty simple one, perhaps he never learned to read critically either.
Another example of language manipulation I recently encountered also involves homosexuality. The following passage is from an introductory psychology textbook.
What, perhaps, most sets homosexuality apart from heterosexuality is the continuing hostility toward homosexual behaviors in many corners of society. In a survey of 363 adults, 68 percent agreed “strongly” or “somewhat” with the statement “Sex between two men is just plain wrong”; 64 percent agreed “strongly” or “somewhat” with the statement “Sex between two women is just plain wrong." Researchers have labeled highly negative attitudes toward gay people homophobia. (Richard J. Gerrig and Philip G. Zimbardo, Psychology and Life [Boston: Pearson, 2005], 381)
The key word in the above passage is “hostility.” I will acknowledge that the authors’ use of the word is, according to Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, perfectly acceptable, for the word can mean “conflict, opposition, or resistance in thought or principle.” By that definition, I suppose I am hostile to homosexuality. Nevertheless, this is not the definition that most people think of when they see the word “hostility.” Most people probably believe the word to be more accurately defined by the first two entries in Merriam-Webster’s: “hostile action” or “overt acts of warfare.”
I suspect the choice of the word “hostility” was quite calculated by the textbook authors, for it creates the impression that homosexuals are innocent victims and that all who oppose the practice of homosexuality are mean and cruel enemies who conduct “hostile action” or “overt acts of warfare” against homosexuals. The simple fact is that “strongly” or “somewhat” disagreeing with homosexuality does not make one hostile. I strongly disagree with Howard Stern, but I would never take hostile action toward him.
Again, the use of such subtle language manipulation helps academics push their anti-Christian agenda. More importantly, it has the potential to confuse our children. A steady diet of such propaganda can lead students to be duped by it. Eventually, they can be fooled into thinking their Christian parents are “hostile” people because they don’t condone homosexual behaviors.
One more example. A few weeks ago Republican Senator Lincoln Chafee from Rhode Island voted against confirming Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court because, said the senator, “I am a […] pro-environment […] Republican.” The implication, of course, is that Judge Alito and those who support him are “anti-environment.” If the use of such loaded language were not so serious, it would be comical. In all of my years on our planet I have never met anyone who was against the environment. While I am not a member of the Green Party, I like the environment. I think it’s a good thing. I’m glad there is an environment. Without it, I would not be!
Yet many people give little or no thought to examples of language manipulation such as Senator Chafee’s. And because of such language manipulation, the Christian “Right” has come to be known as “anti-environmentalist.” In reality, most practicing Christians are wonderful stewards of the environment, and I know many Christians who have deep concerns about environmental issues. In fact, I myself am deeply concerned about the environment, and I make lifestyle choices to reflect that concern.
Nevertheless, many “environmentalists” on the political Left would consider me an enemy of their agenda. Why? Mainly because, although we probably agree on the majority of general environmental issues, we disagree about one fundamental point. Unlike most zealous “environmentalists,” I believe humans are more important than animals. My Biblical world view tells me so. On the other hand, many hard-core “environmentalists” believe that animal and plant life is equal to human life. Consequently, they champion legislation that protects the mating habits of the porcupine caribou at the expense of allowing the United States to drill for Alaskan oil that would help us become less economically dependent on murderous, ill-intentioned enemies in the Middle East. Essentially, I approach environmentalism from a Biblical perspective. They do not.
The loaded terms “pro-environment” and “anti-environment” play with our children’s minds. When they overhear their parents championing the cause of Alaskan drilling but are then told at school that drilling would interfere with porcupine caribou mating, they may begin to wonder why their parents would want to hurt those sweet, beautiful, innocent animals. And because of an abundance of similar indoctrination attempts in the classroom, they can start to see their parents as “anti-environment,” even though their parents may have sincere concerns about the environment but approach them from a Biblical perspective. An even worse implication is that our children start to see their agenda-driven teacher as being right, while their parents, whose beliefs are rooted in the word of God, are wrong. The next logical step, then, is that the Bible must be wrong.
This is why we must teach our children to be critical readers and thinkers at an early age. We must teach them that language can be manipulated to toy with emotions and distort or completely falsify facts.
(My critics will no doubt say that the term “pro-life” manipulates language in the same way and implies that abortion proponents are “anti-life” or “pro-death.” Such a comparison, however, would be akin to comparing apples and bananas. The fact is that abortion proponents are indeed pro-death and anti-life when the “burden” of a baby is something they simply don’t want to deal with. On the contrary, I’ve never known anyone who tried to “kill” the environment simply because he or she did not want to deal with it.)
I realize, of course, that the title of my essay is a bit misleading. One does not need to be the next Shakespeare or have a degree in English literature to be a critical reader and have an appreciation for the language. However, the disciplines of reading and writing help to foster an appreciation for and an understanding of words and their meanings. If our Christian children are to really make an impact in the world of ideas, they must be effective, accurate communicators, and they must be able to recognize language manipulation and propaganda as if doing so were second nature.
So how do we help develop these skills in our children at an early age? Below are a few suggestions.
1. Most importantly, we can make sure that our kids read Scripture. Reading God’s word not only gives them general reading practice, it also strengthens them with the Holy Spirit, who will give them wisdom to recognize language manipulation and propaganda.
2. We can make our children read general literature. For every minute my kids spend on the X Box, they owe their mother and me thirty seconds of reading. It’s an understanding that has simply become a part of our home life.
3. We can set a good example for our children by turning the television off occasionally and doing some reading for ourselves.
4. We can encourage young Christians to teach English, even though they might never get rich doing so. During my time as an admissions counselor at a Christian college, my biggest frustration was dealing with parents whose main concern was that their children would graduate with a degree that would land them in a high tax bracket. I understand that money is a basic human need, but some of those parents cared for their children’s calling about as much as Hillary Clinton cares for mine. Teaching English is an incredibly important job, and any young person who feels the Lord’s call to that role should be encouraged to be obedient, regardless of earning potential.
5. When our children come to us grumbling about their English and writing homework, we can make sure we don’t condone their grumbling by saying things such as, “I don’t blame you for disliking English—I never liked it either.” Instead, we can emphasize that having and effectively using language skills are important aspects of fulfilling one’s calling as a child of God.
6. We can urge our churches and their youth programs to help train our children to recognize language manipulation, propaganda, and indoctrination attempts.
7. We can point out to our children language manipulation and indoctrination attempts every single time we encounter them. This will no doubt happen frequently, as our children are being attacked from every corner of the culture. However, making a habit of pointing out language manipulation to our children will form in them a habit of looking for it and recognizing it.
Though not referring to training about recognizing propaganga, the great churchman Martin Luther eloquently made the case for the diligent study of language:
I am persuaded that without knowledge of literature pure theology cannot at all endure, just as heretofore, when letters have declined and lain prostrate; nay, I see that there has never been a great revelation of the Word of God unless He has first prepared the way by the rise and prosperity of languages and letters, as though they were John the Baptists...Certainly it is my desire that there shall be as many poets and rhetoricians as possible, because I see that by these studies, as by no other means, people are wonderfully fitted for the grasping of sacred truth and for handling it skillfully and happily...Therefore I beg of you that at my request (if that has any weight) you will urge your young people to be diligent in the study of poetry and rhetoric. (Martin Luther, Quoted by D. J. A. Clines, "Story and Poem: The Old Testament as Literature and as Scripture," Interpretation 34 (1980): 115.)