Evangelicals in Wonderland: The Problem of Nonsense

Nonsense pollutes our air. Spectacular advances in “communications” have produced the side effect of increasing people’s capacity to manipulate and suffocate one another with distorted words. And so attempts at genuine communication are obscured by a persistent smog of nonsense. Every four years as election time approaches we become acutely aware that the nonsense-pollution index is rising, but the problem is not a quadrennial one. In a culture where advertising, sloganeering, propaganda, and even hard-core duplicity are integral parts of the way of life, the haze of meaninglessness and falsehood seldom clears.

In this wonderland of nonsense Christians must communicate clear meanings by words. We affirm that God himself has chosen to communicate to men through the inspired words of Scripture, and that words are among our most essential means to witness to the truth of the Gospel. And so, in contrast to the use of words to disguise reality, we must use words to represent reality as accurately as possible—the realities of God’s creation, man’s condition, God’s judgment, and Christ’s work of redemption.

As evangelicals, then, we hold a view of language that is at sharp odds with current norms and practices. We need to understand this difference clearly. It is particularly important, I suggest, to view the current manipulation by language and misrepresentation of reality as symptoms of basic cultural assumptions that are essentially antagonistic to the evangelical proclamation of God’s Word.

Although no one has a monopoly on misleading communication, the world of advertising is certainly a leader. Constant exposure to fanciful, extravagant advertising claims has conditioned us not to expect that ads will correspond to any discernible reality. Being told that each of ten identical products is “the best” seldom disturbs us. The suggestion that a mouthwash or deodorant may dramatically reverse a disastrous love life hardly seems out of place in a world of white tornadoes, crown-wearing margarine eaters, and an assortment of supermen and “miracles” to brighten the housewife’s day. Even statements directly contrary to fact often pass by unnoticed, as, for example, the claim that the inhaled smoke of a particular cigarette is like “a breath of springtime.” In a time of such distortions, cosmic claims for the most trivial products hardly seem surprising. So we are offered a shoe polish that will “change the world,” a car that is “something to believe in”; we are told that if we name the name of a particular beer we’ve “said it all.” We have one cola with “a lot to give” while its competitor (perhaps with a philosopher in its agency’s employ) is proclaimed “the real thing.” Anyone comparing the words of these quasi-religious or philosophical statements with the realities to which they refer must admit that nonsense has come a long way.

In the popular and controversial study of a few years ago entitled Understanding Media, Marshall McLuhan pointed out some of the wider implications of modern methods of communication. Careful and descriptive “linear” thought suited for the printed page, he suggested, was obsolete in the age of electronic media. McLuhan’s own writing style illustrated this point. Constant repetition of striking overstatements (such as “the medium is the message”) marked his technique, much as it characterizes modern advertising. McLuhan demonstrated that in modern culture words are most effectively used when wrenched away from their ties to reality and hurled like bombshells that will simply leave an impression.

Although advertising might seem to be on the periphery of our cultural life, similar standards for the relation between language and truth are widely prevalent within the basic structures of modern society. Examples are as close as the latest news. Political parties and administrations, military leaders and militants, news media and their critics, all thrive on accusing one another of distortion and deception. “Revelations” of truth that was hidden from the public are almost a standard feature of news reports. Political and interest groups of all stripes characteristically present themselves in terms of Madison Avenue “images” and slogans that often bear slight relation to reality. Communication by words is often replaced by confrontations of demonstrators who, true to the style of an advertising age, communicate almost solely by impact. On all sides the use of words to hide reality, rather than to describe it, proceeds at such a rate that many foresee the early arrival of an Orwellian 1984 in which language has been transformed into “New-speak,” “Black-white,” and “Doublethink.”

To attribute the whole problem to advertisers, politicians, radicals, the “establishment,” the military-industrial complex, the militant anti-industrial conspiracy, or any other segment of society is a mistake. All these groups contribute to the problem, but they are also victims of certain assumptions that have been widely accepted in our culture for at least several generations. These assumptions lead to the Babel-like chaos of words and corresponding cultural fragmentation. Most simply described, they seem to arise out of the long-standing activism in our society, the obsession with technique, the asking of “How?” rather than “Why?,” the belief in “deeds, not creeds.”

Perhaps the clearest formulations of these cultural ideals are found in the works of American philosophers in the early twentieth-century “pragmatist” tradition, such as William James and John Dewey. These philosophers, though not wholly responsible for cultural trends they reflected as well as shaped, stated most precisely the philosophical basis on which much of American society has come to operate. Ideas, both James and Dewey affirmed, are not mirrors of reality but plans of action. Although “pragmatism” can be narrowly defined as simply a convenient method for settling certain sorts of philosophical questions, the pragmatists themselves recognized that their views involved a new theory of truth. James, for instance, states this point, quoting Dewey’s statement “that ideas (which themselves are but parts of our experience) become true just in so far as they help us to get into satisfactory relation with other parts of our experience.”

The assumption about reality on which this new theory of truth is based is essentially a developmental view: reality is only the changing phenomena we experience, and the function of intellect is to help us to adjust to this changing environment. Absolutes become “irrelevant” in this essentially relativistic world, and the only important questions are questions of “adjustment.” How much acceptance these ideas have won can be seen in the approach of much of current social science and political analysis to problems essentially as matters of adjustment. Americans today characteristically describe human and social problems with such words as “maladjusted,” “underprivileged,” “overpopulated,” or “underdeveloped,” all based on the assumption that what we need is a bit more tinkering with the social machinery. In this age of technology and technique, it is as though we think we can solve our problems in a way much like adjusting the fine tuning on the TV.

Some of the danger of these assumptions becomes apparent when we consider their effects on language. Words, like the ideas they express, become not mirrors of reality but primarily means for action. Words function basically as instruments by which men are to adjust to their environment. Often a more accurate term than “adjustment” to describe the aim of this way of using words is “manipulation.” If words are basically instruments, then we may properly manipulate others with them. Modern totalitarian states have adopted this philosophy of words for their huge propaganda operations. Americans have been more subtle, but the trend in the use of words for manipulation has been much the same.

The turn away from meaning in the use of words, then, seems intimately related to the more general cultural and ideological crisis that American and Western civilization has been experiencing for at least the last century. But it is not a minor symptom. Words are among God’s most important gifts to men. Without language that can reliably convey meaning, human life and love, as well as human society, lose many of their best qualities. As in the time of Babel, the confusion of tongues is one of the most devastating symptoms of the failure of a culture without God. Rather than a peaceful “global village” unified by efficient communications, we have a world of increasing fragmentation, misunderstanding, and chaos.

In sharp contrast to the disastrous abuse of language and meaning so prevalent today, evangelical Christians should have a particularly acute appreciation for the proper use of language. The starting point for our understanding is our recognition that God communicates to us through the words of Scripture. That God chose this means of communication has some important implications. For one thing, it implies that truths about God, the reality he has created, and his acts in history can be communicated through language. In Isaiah 55 God tells us that although his thoughts are not our thoughts, still his word will not return unto him void. In the example of God’s effectively speaking to us in the human language of Scripture we have a guarantee that words can convey truth. “God-talk” is possible because God has talked to us about himself. Furthermore the model of Scripture guarantees that language can adequately describe historical reality. God tells us in Scripture both of his own acts and of the history of his people, and our knowledge of these historical events, knowledge gained almost solely through language, has decisive significance for our faith and destiny.

The assurance that one of the proper and primary functions of human language is to describe the reality of God and his acts in history separates us widely from prevailing attitudes toward the possible relations between language and truth. One dominant mood in much of twentieth-century philosophy (and even in much theology) has been to despair of being able to make any metaphysical statements. Further, it has been widely held that men cannot make statements about any historical events with enough certainty to provide the basis for ultimate faith commitment. In more popular culture, skepticism over the possibility of significant statements about these areas of reality has led to the use of language largely as a subjective tool for adjusting to one’s environment.

Christians on the other hand must insist that language can be, and should be, used to describe significant metaphysical and historical realities. We recognize, of course, that our words never correspond to reality, exhaustively or with perfect precision, and we realize as well that there are many different ways of using language to describe reality, such as in poetry or symbols. Words also are properly used for other purposes than description. But when they are used to describe, we must always maintain the highest possible standards, testing whether they adequately and honestly describe things as they really are.

In maintaining such standards, we must acknowledge our limitations. We know something about the reality of God and his work in history, but there is much more that we do not know. Furthermore, we cannot suppose that our words will perfectly communicate to others the messages we hope to express. Languages and nuances of meanings change over time and among different persons. In Scripture we have the most sure words, but even there our understanding of the meanings of those words is limited by the transitions of meaning across time and cultures. We must therefore carefully distinguish between the meaning of God’s Word and our understanding of it, humbly trusting that the Holy Spirit will enlighten our understanding and communicate through our imperfections. Nonetheless, both the model of God’s communication to his people in Scripture and express promises that we can witness in words that will edify (as in First Corinthians 14, for instance) assure us that our words are adequate and supremely valuable for communicating truths about the reality of God and his acts.

In presenting the evangelical message today, in contrast to current emphasis on the value of the subjective, of relationships, and of pragmatic actions, we should stress our message’s objective aspect, or the degree to which what we say represents reality. Since this emphasis is only part of our message and hence is liable to be misunderstood, it is extremely important for us to point out that our talk about objective reality is by no means opposed to meaningful subjective relationships. On the contrary, communication of truth provides the only viable basis for such relationships. God communicates to men in Scripture, not simply through a set of statements about objective reality, but as part of a relationship of love. Language, God shows us, is one of our most valuable gifts for expressing love.

Moreover, words as God uses them are never divorced from actions. His redemptive words are always associated with his redemptive acts. When God declares his commandments, for instance, he reminds his people that he is the God who has redeemed them from bondage. The words that God’s true prophets speak will be fulfilled by acts. In Christ, God’s combination of word and action is perfectly revealed. Christ is the Word. His words are infallible and authoritative. Yet Christ is the Word who acts, who dwells among us, and who dies to redeem us. In the present age God continues to communicate his love to us through the Holy Spirit, who both speaks to us through the written Word and acts to change our hearts and lives. We in turn must respond with loving words that when truly spoken necessarily involve loving actions toward others. In other words, we become evangelical.

Twentieth-century Christians who emphasize the authority and trustworthiness of God’s written Word have not been popular in the general culture and have often been severely criticized both within and outside the churches. They have been accused of turning the Bible into an idol and of holding an unrealistic and even ugly view of the place of words in God’s revelation. In part such accusations may legitimately point to failures on our part. Yet as things have turned out in twentieth-century culture, we can convincingly argue that departures from biblical norms account for the ugly corruption so prevalent in language today. Men unwilling to hear God’s Word and hence with no guarantee that they can know or communicate anything meaningful about reality are left with wholly subjective experience in a world of relativism. The rapid trend toward anarchical uses of language—as exemplified in advertising and propaganda—is one result. Words have rich varieties of nuances and meanings. If men allow them to be used indiscriminately as tools of manipulation, they will be dehumanized by the steady erosion of some of their most valuable resources for portraying beauty and expressing love.

A promising sign in the recent enthusiasm for Christianity among many of the young and the alienated in our society is the reverence for the Word of God. Many of those who have turned toward Jesus have been eager to know the Word. Despite the dogmatic assertions by many modern theologians about what “modern man” can and cannot believe about reality, these young believers have a thirst to know what the Bible actually says. They seem dissatisfied with simply “relevant” or tolerant actions disembodied from any words that give the actions clear meanings. They want the hard facts and demands of the Gospel, not an easy or an empty discipleship.

What many of the young are now saying to our culture, evangelicals have been attempting to say for some time. We have not always said it effectively. Perhaps at times our actions have betrayed our words; our complacency about some of the norms of our culture has obscured our message. The urgent task and the great opportunity now is for us to speak effectively to a culture gasping for the truth. Virtually everyone in our society is somewhat aware of the current distortion of meaning, and of its disastrous effects on the quality of human life. This means that we have unusually fine opportunities to challenge the standards of hypocrisy and nonsense and to point out their destructive and dehumanizing effects. In a day when men are ready to recognize the consequences of modern theorists’ futile attempts to establish human values without God, we have a marvelous platform for effectively proclaiming the Gospel of the Word.

George M. Marsden is associate professor of history at Calvin College, Grand Rapids, Michigan. He has the Ph.D. (Yale University) and has written “The Evangelical Mind and the New School Presbyterian Experience.”

Have something to add about this? See something we missed? Share your feedback here.