Ok, so I rarely post over here. Sorry. But I figure the least I can do is cross-post once in awhile from my “real” blog. So here goes.
*****
Let me start with the caveats. Many people suffer at the hands of others. The world can be unfair, at times mercilessly so. Millions of people in the world are genuine victims, right now. All of us will be at some point, whether it’s for small matters or large, for a long duration or short.
But we aren’t all victims, not all the time anyway, not for everything.
Offendedness is just about the last shared moral currency in our country. And, I’m sorry, but it’s really annoying. We don’t discuss ideas or debate arguments, we try to figure out who is most offended. Buddhists are offended by Brit Hume. Christians are offended that critics disparage Brit Hume. Republicans are offended by Harry Reid’s comments about President Obama. If the shoe were on the other partisan foot, you can bet Democrats would be offended for President Obama (who can legitimately be offended by Reid’s remarks). Whenever someone makes a public gaffe, whether real or perceived, critics storm the microphones to let the world know how offended they are. Why is everyone in such a hurry to be hurt?
For starters, being hurt is easier than being right. To prove you’re offended you just have to rustle up moral indignation and tell the world about it. To prove you’re right you actually have to make arguments and use logic and marshal evidence. Why debate theology or politics or economics if you can win your audience by making the other guys look like meanies?
There’s nothing like being offended to nail your opponent. No one wants to look like a jerk (ok, maybe Donald Trump does). No one wants to come off as a free-wheeling dealer of pain. As a result, we end up held hostage by the possible taking of offense. It’s rarely asked whether such offense is warranted or whether it even matters. No, if there is offense, there must be an offender. And offenders are always wrong.
So we demand apologies. Sometimes, no doubt, because a genuine sin has been committed. But often we demand apologies just because we can. It’s a way to shame those with whom we disagree. It forces them to admit failure or keep looking like a weasel. The weakest offense-taker can now bully multitudes of intelligent men and women through the emotional manipulation that goes with chronic offendedness.
We live in an emotionally fragile culture. We are in touch with every hurt past, present, and perceived. We are the walking wounded and we want everyone to know. Which is too bad, because when people are genuine victims–profoundly, egregiously wronged–they deserve not to be lumped in the same category with those who got picked last for kickball or turned down for their church’s “special music.”
As Christians, we worship a victimized Lord. We should expect to suffer and should have particular compassion on those who hurt emotionally and physically. But we do not resemble the Suffering Servant when we take pains to show off our suffering. I’m not thinking of the Brit Hume ordeal now. I’m just thinking in general how we are tempted to gain the culture’s approval by playing the culture’s offense-taking game. If a law is broken or a legitimate right taken away, let us protest with passion. But if we are misunderstood or even reviled let’s not go after short-lived and half-hearted affirmation by announcing our offendedness for the world to hear. Every time we try to make hay out of misplaced calumnies, we hasten the demise of Christianity in the public square. As offendedness becomes the barometer of acceptable discourse, we can expect further marginalization of Christian beliefs.
So buck up brothers and sisters. Most often in this country, we are not victims because of our faith. There are just as many people, it seems to me, standing to Brit Hume’s defense as they are pillorying him. Let every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the world be crushed to (phony) emotional pieces when their ideas are scrutinized. We can chart a different course and trust that our beliefs can handle Keith Olberman’s disapproval. We have no reason to be anxious, every reason to be joyful, and fewer reasons than we think to be offended.
January 13th, 2010 | 11:47 am | #1
I can’t believe you wrote this!!!
January 13th, 2010 | 12:08 pm | #2
During orientation for my first year of seminary, as we discussed the then contentious issue of inclusive language usage, a classmate who had been an attorney prior to entering seminary, noted that in his experience as an attorney, people have an enormous capacity to be offended. Three years later in a class on Contemporary Theology where feminist theology was the lecture topic, I brought this anecdote back up by way of revisiting where we were as we came to the end of our time there. The lecturer’s dismissive response was that it was her experience that people have an enormous capacity to be offensive. Ba-dum-bum. End of discussion.
In this light, I find it not the least bit surprising that the culture has come to this point twenty years later.
January 13th, 2010 | 1:08 pm | #3
Kevin,
I find this post deeply offensive. Indeed, it borders on hate speech! I demand reparations!
January 13th, 2010 | 1:33 pm | #4
Fantastic insights, Kevin.
I wonder sometimes at the attitude of Christian leaders in my community of striving to be as inoffensive as possible, to the point of avoiding whole swathes of Scripture in their preaching and teaching. It seems to me that the quest to preserve our dignity and not be accused of being bullies only defuses our ability to present the Gospel.
January 13th, 2010 | 5:14 pm | #5
“Which is too bad, because when people are genuine victims–profoundly, egregiously wronged–they deserve not to be lumped in the same category with those who got picked last for kickball or turned down for their church’s ‘special music.’” [I wholeheartedly agree.]
Also, I hope no one is offended that I don’t have any unusual feelings of sympathy for Mr. Hume who is a public figure with plenty of the support he needs to endure those who disapprove of his statements. There are so many anonymous believers who are persecuted and oppressed on a daily basis for defending the truths of the Christian faith, and who do so with very little, if any public support at all, that I don’t feel especially compelled to glorify a man in Mr. Hume’s position in this case. (Just my own opinion; not implying anyone else should feel the same way.)
January 13th, 2010 | 5:33 pm | #6
Being offended is the mechanism many use to shame a someone into correcting their behavior. Is it possible to shame by some other means? And without the public demonstration of being offended, would the offender(s) still understand the reason for their punishment? Ralph Hancock blogged about this back in August (First Things/Postmodern Conservative):
the harsh regime that not long ago excluded unwed mothers from respectable society has now been softened considerably, as was no doubt necessary. But now (even in very conservative religious circles) we are so “understanding” and “forgiving,” concerned to continue to fellowship the offender, that all natural shame is removed, and a pregnant teenager might expect to continue socializing with the good girls as if nothing were the matter.
Very kind and compassionate, no doubt — but is it really, in the long run, a service to the community to remove the stigma from selfish and irresponsible acts.
The deeper problem: how do the obligations of Christian charity stand in relation to the claims of natural justice and shame? Or, what happens when we try to make the exception (forgiveness) the rule (justice)? Are not both perverted?
January 14th, 2010 | 6:35 pm | #7
I agree that much offense is self-serving, yet it is legitimate to be concerned, not for Mr. Hume himself, but the fact that his concern as expressed for Mr. Woods was misrepresented and maligned. In this case, the offense is not over persons, but the offense to truth, and the human trangressions (double-standards, etc.) that the Hume incident illustrates. It is not offensive to righteousness to be offended over evil and wrong-doing. The problem is when offense is personalized.
January 15th, 2010 | 9:03 am | #8
[...] DeYoung posted a great article on this very subject – Why Are We So Offended All the Time? (cross-post). In his post he made the following statement. As Christians, we worship a victimized [...]
January 15th, 2010 | 9:32 am | #9
[...] on the Evangel blog, Kevin DeYoung has one of the most offensive posts I’ve ever read: Offendedness is just about the last shared moral currency in our country. [...]
January 15th, 2010 | 11:29 am | #10
The technical term is argumentum ad misericordiam in case you wanted to know.
January 15th, 2010 | 12:07 pm | #11
Who is Brit Hume?
January 16th, 2010 | 1:02 pm | #12
[...] DeYoung makes this claim at the evangel blog. Amongst many good things, he says: For starters, being hurt is easier than being right. To prove [...]
January 16th, 2010 | 1:40 pm | #13
I love this post :)
January 16th, 2010 | 1:53 pm | #14
Spot on. This is the logical end of political correctness, and it’s more than annoying–it makes a mockery of those who really suffer, exactly as you note. Thanks for saying it so lucidly.
January 18th, 2010 | 8:14 am | #15
See also http://www.christianitymagazine.co.uk/features/the_age_of_rage.aspx, if you have a subscription. Mark Greene arguing a similar thing in the UK context.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact