Our Language - A Turning Point

So far a couple of things to keep in mind.  First, in some way there is something about Christianity and relationships that needs to be examined.  Second, the language we speak has a power and authority well beyond its obvious use as our means of communicating with each other.  Our language not only is the means and method of communicating with others and interacting with our world, it also, most critically, has a formative power that we fail to realize, as it shapes what we see and how we relate to people (that relationship thing again).

So now our language.  It seems to me we use a lot of economic speak in our current use of everyday words.  As our world is driven by economics and is, or was?, a great example of the viability of capitalism, it seems pretty natural that we begin to see, think and relate to the other in economic metaphor.  That leads, I argued, to use of the contractual paradigm, or way of understanding our world and how we interpret our relationships, both professionally and personally.

Finally we have seen what it is that we hold near and dear - that is, our individualism and the freedom to be.  Field’s opinion is, I think, pretty amazing at how he captures and defines that freedom.  Recall, Field spoke about certain principles of morality that characterize the American experiment in democracy, and which binds us together as a society, but those inalienable rights really come down to economic freedom that give men “their highest happiness.”

So we are left with a system of language based on economic metaphor and contractual worldview if you will, with a end toward exercising and enhancing our individual freedoms, or rights.  But what is a key is that those rights are really undefined.  As such despite the lofty sounding words about inalienable rights from our Creator, on a practical basis its that pursuit of happiness or economic freedom with individual liberty that really comprises those shared principles of morality.

We are back to that great social contract formed to allow American society to exist and function (however well or poorly it may be).  Touching base with Hayakawa, I suggest those rights are really derived from the mutual agreements and the will of the majority of the people and not from a shared set of values or moral - particularly not a set of values and morals derived from the story we call our Scriptures.

The posts will now focus in on a hot button issue for many Christians - that of abortion in America.  I believe we Christians have lost our voice, at least in the public square, when it comes to the legality of abortion.  I believe that loss may be attributed to the language we speak or the language we fail to speak.  Stanley Hauerwas, a powerful thinker in the area of Christian ethics, suggests “it is assumed that the moral disagreement between these two sides [pro- and anti-abortion advocates] must involve a basic moral principle such as ‘all life is sacred’ or be a matter of fact such as whether the fetus is considered human life.  But this kind of analysis fails to see that the issue is not one of principle or fact but one of perception determined by a history of interpretation,” written with David Burrell in “From System to Story:  An Alternative Pattern for Rationality in Ethics” from Why Narrative? at 169.  And that perception is not and can not be formed from the mutual agreements and will of the majority of the people as constituted today in America.