Words, Tone, and Mood: Four Biblical Categories for Contemporary Christian Communication Heath Lambert The Christian Communication Continuum For quite some time now, Christians have been arguing over the issue of ministry language, tone, and mood. Those words do not all stand for the same thing, and much has been said about each by many different people. I cannot engage every person or issue in one article. But in general terms, the debate has been between those who wish to communicate truth in more severe terms and those who wish to communicate it in softer terms. Those on the softer side want to speak the truth in ways defined by care and winsomeness. They accuse those on the severe side of setting back the cause of Christ by using words, tones, and moods that are injudicious, intemperate, and, at times, ungodly. Those on the severer side want to speak the truth in boldly provocative ways that blast through our cultural hardness. They accuse those on the soft side of setting back the cause of Christ by failing to speak to the culture in terms that are strong enough to counteract the cultural rot. God communicates to his people in the words of Scripture and calls his servants to share the truth of Scripture with words (2 Timothy 4:1-2). That fact makes very few realities more important than the words ministers of the gospel use when communicating God’s truth. Christian ministers are called to speak in ways that are both faithful and effective. To reach that lofty goal, Christians need to consider four biblical categories: Rigney and Ortlund, Golf Clubs and Tennis Racquets, Isaiah and Jeremiah, and, finally, Good Dads and Bad Dads. I’ll start with Rigney and Ortlund Rigney and Ortlund Joe Rigney and Gavin Ortlund had a public debate about these matters that focused on comments made by Doug Wilson. Wilson is the president, CEO, and board chairman of the provocateurs on the more severe end of the Christian communication continuum. Explosive rhetoric is a signature of his communication strategy. Ortlund, a representative of the softer side of communication, invited Rigney, a ministry associate of Wilson, onto his podcast to defend some of the derogatory language Wilson used. The debate revealed that Rigney and Ortlund are each quite comfortable on their respective ends of the Christian communication continuum. Neither moved the other, and I doubt either was effective in moving anyone else. The most illuminating part of their interaction happened towards the middle of the debate when they both agreed that vulgar language was included in Scripture. Video: 33:44—34:37. Rigney: Do you think the Bible uses vulgarities? As in profanity? Ortlund: Oh, yes. That’s what I was saying. It does so to unmask evil. Rigney: So, then it is legitimate to use vulgarity. You’re objecting to this particular one—the description of body parts—that particular application, not to the principle of obscenities and vulgarities are usable by wise, careful people. Not haphazard, not casual, but intentional uses of those is legitimate. Ortlund: Yes. Now I also said . . . I think there are some terms that really, we should never use. And the reason for that would be that I can’t imagine any scenario where it would have an edifying effect. When Rigney and Ortlund admit the presence of vulgarity and obscenity in Scripture, they are referring to the severe rhetoric and harsh actions that are regularly part of the communication in Scripture. Moses’s preaching was attended with plagues that led to the deaths of countless Egyptians (Exodus 7-12). Elijah mocked the false prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:27). Isaiah was commanded by God to preach naked for three years (Isaiah 20:2-3). Ezekiel condemned the sinfulness of God’s people in some of the harshest and most sexually provocative language imaginable (Ezekiel 16, 23). John the Baptist called his opponents a brood of vipers (Matthew 3:7). Jesus referred to his opponents as children of hell (Matthew 23:15). These are just a few of the repeated examples of Scripture that force Rigney and Ortlund to agree that the Bible includes not only the soft kind of communication but the severe kind as well. In principle, it is not out of biblical bounds for Christians to use stern and provocative language in an effort to rebuke sin and error. The debate is over the wisdom of particular uses of that severe language. Christians will always have communication preferences. They should also be aware of the various strengths and weaknesses that attend any method of communication. But they also should avoid ultimate condemnation of any style of communication that God allows in his Word. Golf Clubs and Tennis Racquets I am no expert at either golf or tennis. But I know enough about them to understand that they require very different equipment. Playing tennis requires one implement—a racquet—used for every play. Golf requires a bag full of different clubs, all of which are required for a successful game. God’s work of raising up preachers is more like golf than tennis. He uses many instruments, not just one. God has given every preacher very specific gifts, callings, burdens, and audiences. The gifts, callings, burdens, and audiences that God has given to one faithful minister are guaranteed to be different than those he has given to any other. No one minister or ministry accomplishes all the good work God is doing in his Kingdom. When we recognize that ministry communication, like golf, requires many instruments, instead of tennis, which requires only one, it will teach us the wisdom of seeing limits and being grateful. Regarding limits, every one of the ministers that God uses is designed to have strengths and weaknesses. Unfortunately, too many ministers find it easy to be experts in their strengths and novices in their weaknesses. This is sinful. Romans 12:3-4 says, “For by the grace given to me I say to everyone among you not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think, but to think with sober judgment, each according to the measure of faith that God has assigned. For as in one body, we have many members, and the members do not all have the same function.” One practical way the Apostle Paul gives Christians to undercut pride is to realize we are all serving alongside people who have strengths that we don’t have. Those strengths do not undermine our own advantages but complement our weaknesses. That leads to the importance of being grateful. Instead of being frustrated that others communicate differently than us, most of us should cultivate gratitude for the gifts of others that God uses to accomplish more than he ever would if he only used us. Some of God’s instruments are better suited for the more severe kind of communication. Others are better at the softer variety. The Kingdom needs both. Isaiah and Jeremiah Earlier, I mentioned a public debate between Joe Rigney and Gavin Ortlund over shocking comments from Doug Wilson. What if I told you that the research department at First Baptist Church had recovered a conversation between the prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah on Jeremiah’s podcast, Prophets Who Weep, where they debated the wisdom of Isaiah’s three years of nude preaching recorded in Isaiah 20:2-3? Jeremiah: Uh, so . . . Isaiah . . . you know what I have to ask. The prophetic community here in Judea is buzzing that you’ve been preaching naked. Isaiah: Oh, I know. Believe me. It is all my wife talks about. And Maher-shalal-hash-baz’s friends at school are making his life miserable. Jeremiah: So . . . is it true? Have you really been taking your clothes off to preach? Isaiah: Well, if it helps, I am able to predict that in a few thousand years, scholars will debate whether I was fully naked or just in a loin cloth. Jeremiah: So, brother, with respect, I saw you in the pool last night at The Broken Cisterns Resort and Spa, and it won’t make any difference whether you were fully naked or wearing underwear. Listen, as a fellow preacher of God’s Word, I speak for a lot of us with real concerns about doing public ministry in a state of undress. Isaiah: You have concerns? Man, I’m the one with his rear end in the air! Jeremiah: Ok. Fair point. But honestly, my brother, isn’t what you’re doing a distraction from the message of repentance we’re called to preach? Aren’t you making your nudity the story instead of the crucial message of repentance? Isaiah: Uh, Jeremiah, the nudity is the message. The nudity is a graphic and visual message of the shame that is coming unless sinners repent. I wonder if the distraction is an argument between two prophets called by God. Of course, no such conversation exists. In fact, in all of Scripture, there is no record of any faithful prophet, teacher, or apostle who publicly corrects the style of another minister of the Word. The Apostle Paul publicly rebuked the Apostle Peter. But the rebuke is not over style but over substance. Peter was in error with conduct out of step with the truth of the gospel (Galatians 2:11-14). This means the biblical authors agree in principle with Rigney and Ortlund. There is a wide continuum of communication styles acceptable in Scripture. Some faithful communicators will occupy real estate on that continuum that makes others uncomfortable. It can be helpful to openly discuss these differences. But when we have those conversations, we should be careful to remember that correcting the methods of a faithful biblical preacher is even more foreign to the Bible than the use of shocking language. The point is that if your brother is making an argument that agrees with Scripture in substance, you should be very slow to critique him on the grounds of style. Good Dads and Bad Dads Given that many styles of communication are biblically in bounds and that God has raised up many different ministers with countless gifts, callings, burdens, and audiences, one of