Should my speech be more offensive?

Have you suffered from a microaggression recently? It seems like a generation of young Americans are suffering them frequently and the virus (!!!) is spreading. University students are being issued with “Trigger Warnings” in advance of lectures to ensure that the lecture content (history, sociology, literature etc.) doesn’t cause them emotional distress or trauma. What do you think about this?

Whilst I don’t believe that we, in the UK, have totally fallen in to this trap to control firstly, the language that is used, and then the thoughts that follow from use of language, we are certainly on track to George Orwell’s 1984 world where everything is controlled and freedom to speak, act or even think is drastically curtailed.

Elizabeth Hopper explains that “Chester Pierce, a psychiatrist at Harvard University, first introduced the term microaggression in the 1970s. Unlike some other forms of prejudice and discrimination, the perpetrator of a microaggression may not even be aware that their behaviour is hurtful. While microaggressions are sometimes conscious and intentional, on many occasions microaggressions may reflect the perpetrator’s implicit biases about marginalized group members.” 

The “marginalised groups” usually referred to include:

• Racial minorities
• Women
• The disabled
• LGBTQ persons or groups
• Non-binary gender persons
• Minority religions

In fact, most of us belong to at least one of the so called “marginalised groups” and it has been said that the route to “getting ahead” is now to ensure that you clearly identify with such a group.

The result of this labelling is that that now means some subjects are deemed so offensive that they may not even be discussed. Some important issues are beyond academic investigation and anyone who challenges the perceived opinion deserves to be “cancelled”, shut down blanked or “no-platformed. Surprisingly, people such as Germain Greer the feminist author and speaker and Peter Tatchell, of gay charity Stonewall have even fallen foul of the new cultural guidelines and been no-platformed at leading universities.

So, what has this to do with a middle-aged white male Amateur Christian with little likelihood of attending further University lectures.

It got me thinking about some of the things Jesus said:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew 5:27-8

“I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” Matthew 5:44

“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.” Matt 6:24

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.” Matthew 7:21

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of the bones of the dead and everything unclean. Matthew 23:27 What did the Pharisees think about that?

 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink. Matthew 25:41

It seems to the Amateur Christian that wherever Jesus went there was controversy and when ever he spoke to people, outside of his small follower group, he stirred up contrasting emotions. Why didn’t Jesus give Trigger Warnings? He certainly was guilty of numerous microaggressions and not a few major aggressions also!

Would Jesus have been no-platformed by University Student Unions or would he have been a victim of “cancel culture” – views so abhorrent that they should never be heard?

Which brings me onto the main point. If Jesus was comfortable speaking out in ways that challenged hearers and caused them to think deeply about eternal issues, if he was not afraid to cause others discomfort, should I not follow his example?

The other day I was reading what Jesus had to say to his followers about how they were to live in society. He told them that “You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot.” Matthew 5:13. Jesus expected our comments to make a difference and, by current hypersensitive standards these might be considered microaggressions. His followers were to be an antiseptic to society, killing society’s germs and viruses, which infect all aspects of people’s lives. Antiseptic stings!

When we read the Acts of the Apostles and see how Jesus’ messengers were treated in the first century, we see that what they said was not well received. We read that Stephen was stoned, Peter imprisoned, and Paul had such a long list of convictions I suspect he struggled to remember them all. Later church writings reveal that all the apostles died from various forms of persecution/execution.

We live in an easier society where the price for holding non-PC views is likely to be felt on social media rather than on a cross. Perhaps I need to be prepared for my speech to be considered offensive to make any difference in this world. What do you think?

If this article was helpful do feel free to pass it on, comment, or like. Your views are important, and the Amateur Christian looks forward to hearing from you.

Philip Stevens (Amateur Christian)