The Culture of Offendedness!

[Bob Woolley]

I thought this a rather very good article on this subject and wanted to pass it along for your read.
Here is the article below.

Live It!
Welcome to Live It!, a free newsletter from Crosswalk.com, the world's largest Christian website. (c) http://www.crosswalk.com/

The Culture of Offendedness & the Christian Challenge - Albert Mohler

A new and unprecedented "right" is now the central focus of legal, procedural, and cultural concern in many corridors -- a supposed right not to be offended. The cultural momentum behind this purported right is growing fast, and the logic of this movement has taken hold in many universities, legal circles, and interest groups.
The larger world received a rude introduction to the logic of offendedness when riots broke out in many European cities, prompted by a Dutch newspaper's publishing of cartoons that reportedly mocked the Prophet Muhammad. The logic of the riots was that Muslims deserved never to be offended by any insult, real or perceived, directed to their belief system. Unthinking Christians may fall into the same pattern of claiming offendedness whenever we face opposition to our faith or criticism of our beliefs. The risk of being offended is simply part of what it means to live in a diverse culture that honors and celebrates free speech. A right to free speech means a right to offend, otherwise the right would need no protection.
These days, it is the secularists who seem to be most intent on pushing a proposed right never to be offended by confrontation with the Christian Gospel, Christian witness, or Christian speech and symbolism. This motivation lies behind the incessant effort to remove all symbols, representations, references, and images related to Christianity from the public square.
We should note carefully that this notion of offendedness is highly emotive in character. In other words, those who now claim to be offended are generally speaking of an emotional state that has resulted from some real or perceived insult to their belief system or from contact with someone else's belief system. In this sense, being offended does not necessarily involve any real harm but points instead to the fact that the mere presence of such an argument, image, or symbol evokes an emotional response of offendedness.
Professor Helm argues, "Historically, being offended has been a very serious matter. To be offended is to be caused to stumble so as to fall, to fail, to apostasize, to be brought down, to be crushed." As evidence for this claim, Professor Helm points to the language of the King James Bible in which Jesus says to his disciples: "And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast in to hell" [ Matthew 5:29].
Likewise, Jesus also speaks a warning against those who would "offend" the "little ones." As Professor Helm summarizes, "So to 'offend' in this robust sense is to be an agent of destruction. And to be offended is to be placed in desperate straits."
The desperate straits are no longer required in order for an individual or group to claim the emotional status of offendedness. This shift in the meaning of the word and in its cultural usage is subtle but extremely significant.
Offering a rather robust definition of this new usage, Professor Helm describes this new notion of offendedness as "that one is offended when the words and actions of another produce a feeling of hurt, or shame, or humiliation on account of what is said of oneself about one's deepest attachments."
Professor Helm's definition is rather generous, offering more substantial content to this modern notion than may be present in the claims of many persons. Many persons who claim to be offended are speaking merely of the vaguest notion of emotional distaste at what another has said, done, proposed, or presented. This leads to inevitable conflict.
"People have always been upset by insensitivity and negligence, but the profile of offendedness, understood in this modern sense, is being immeasurably heightened," suggests Professor Helm. "The right never to be offended, never to suffer feelings of hurt or shame, is being touted and promoted both by the media and by the government and interest in it is being continually excited." Thus, "Claims to be hurt or shamed are noticed. They are likely to be rewarded."
The very idea of civil society assumes the very real possibility that individuals may at any time be offended by another member of the community. Civilization thrives when individuals and groups seek to minimize unnecessary offendedness, while recognizing that some degree of real or perceived offendedness is the cost the society must pay for the right to enjoy the free exchange of ideas and the freedom to speak one's mind.
Professor Helm is surely right when he argues that the "social value" of offendedness is now increasing. All that is necessary for a claim to be taken seriously is for the claim to be offered. If the essence of the offendedness is an emotional state or response, how can any individual deny that a claimant has been genuinely offended? Professor Helm is right to worry that this will lead to the fracturing of society. "We all hear things we don't like said about people and causes that we are fond of but in the changed social atmosphere we are being encouraged to give public notice if such language offends us. I am now being repeatedly told that I am entitled not to be offended. So -- from now on -- not offended is what I intend to be. Does this heightening of sensitivity make for social cohesion? Does not such cohesion depend rather on enduring what we don't like, and doing so in an adult way? Does not the glue of civic peace rest on such intangibles as the ability to laugh at oneself, to take a joke about even the deepest things? And is it not a measure of the strength of a person's religion that they tolerate the unpleasant conversation of others?
Given our mandate to share the Gospel and to speak openly and publicly about Jesus Christ and the Christian faith, Christians must understand a particular responsibility to protect free speech and to resist this culture of offendedness that threatens to shut down all public discourse.
Of course, the right for Christians to speak publicly about Jesus Christ necessarily means that adherents of other belief systems will be equally free to present their truth claims in an equally public manner. This is simply the cost of religious liberty.
An interesting witness to this point is Salman Rushdie, the novelist who was once put under a Muslim sentence of death because he had insulted Muslim sensibilities in his novel The Satanic Verses. Mr. Rushdie presents an argument that Christians must take seriously.
"The idea that any kind of free society can be constructed in which people will never be offended or insulted is absurd. So too is the notion that people should have the right to call on the law to defend them against being offended or insulted. A fundamental decision needs to be made: do we want to live in a free society or not? Democracy is not a tea party where people sit around making polite conversation. In democracies people get extremely upset with each other. They argue vehemently against each other's positions," Rushdie insists.

As the novelist continues: "People have the fundamental right to take an argument to the point where somebody is offended by what they say. It is no trick to support the free speech of somebody you agree with or to whose opinion you are indifferent. The defense of free speech begins at the point where people say something you can't stand. If you can't defend their right to say it, then you don't believe in free speech. You only believe in free speech as long as it doesn't get up your nose."
As the Apostle Paul made clear in writing to the Corinthians, the preaching of the Gospel has always been considered offensive by those who reject it. When Paul spoke of the cross as "foolishness" and a "stumbling block" [ 1 Corinthians 1:23] he was pointing to this very reality -- a reality that would lead to his own stoning, flogging, imprisonment, and execution.
At the same time, Paul did not want to offend persons on the basis of anything other than the cross of Christ and the essence of the Christian Gospel. For this reason, he would write to the Corinthians about becoming "all things to all people, that by all means I might save some" [ 1 Corinthians 9:22].
Without doubt, many Christians manage to be offensive for reasons other than the offense of the Gospel. This is to our shame and to the injury of our Gospel witness. Nevertheless, there is no way for a faithful Christian to avoid offending those who are offended by Jesus Christ and His cross. The truth claims of Christianity, by their very particularity and exclusivity, are inherently offensive to those who would demand some other gospel.
Christians must not only contend for the preservation and protection of free speech -- essential for the cause of the Gospel -- we must also make certain that we do not fall into the trap of claiming offendedness for ourselves. We must not claim a right not to be offended, even as we must insist that there is no such right and that the social construction of such a right will mean the death of individual liberty, free speech, and the free exchange of ideas. There simply is no right not to be offended, and we should be offended by the very notion that such a right could exist.

See other recent entries on Dr. Mohler's blog.
R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. For more articles and resources by Dr. Mohler, and for information on The Albert Mohler Program, a daily national radio program broadcast on the Salem Radio Network, go to www.albertmohler.com. For information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to www.sbts.edu. Send feedback to mail@albertmohler.com.

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

Thanks! Still chewing on this one.

[Charles W Christian]

The larger world received a rude introduction to the logic of offendedness when riots broke out in many European cities, prompted by a Dutch newspaper's publishing of cartoons that reportedly mocked the Prophet Muhammad. The logic of the riots was that Muslims deserved never to be offended by any insult, real or perceived, directed to their belief system. Unthinking Christians may fall into the same pattern of claiming offendedness whenever we face opposition to our faith or criticism of our beliefs. The risk of being offended is simply part of what it means to live in a diverse culture that honors and celebrates free speech. A right to free speech means a right to offend, otherwise the right would need no protection.
These days, it is the secularists who seem to be most intent on pushing a proposed right never to be offended by confrontation with the Christian Gospel, Christian witness, or Christian speech and symbolism. This motivation lies behind the incessant effort to remove all symbols, representations, references, and images related to Christianity from the public square.
We should note carefully that this notion of offendedness is highly emotive in character. In other words, those who now claim to be offended are generally speaking of an emotional state that has resulted from some real or perceived insult to their belief system or from contact with someone else's belief system. In this sense, being offended does not necessarily involve any real harm but points instead to the fact that the mere presence of such an argument, image, or symbol evokes an emotional response of offendedness.
Professor Helm argues, "Historically, being offended has been a very serious matter. To be offended is to be caused to stumble so as to fall, to fail, to apostasize, to be brought down, to be crushed." As evidence for this claim, Professor Helm points to the language of the King James Bible in which Jesus says to his disciples: "And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast in to hell" [ Matthew 5:29].
Likewise, Jesus also speaks a warning against those who would "offend" the "little ones." As Professor Helm summarizes, "So to 'offend' in this robust sense is to be an agent of destruction. And to be offended is to be placed in desperate straits."
The desperate straits are no longer required in order for an individual or group to claim the emotional status of offendedness. This shift in the meaning of the word and in its cultural usage is subtle but extremely significant.
Offering a rather robust definition of this new usage, Professor Helm describes this new notion of offendedness as "that one is offended when the words and actions of another produce a feeling of hurt, or shame, or humiliation on account of what is said of oneself about one's deepest attachments."
Professor Helm's definition is rather generous, offering more substantial content to this modern notion than may be present in the claims of many persons. Many persons who claim to be offended are speaking merely of the vaguest notion of emotional distaste at what another has said, done, proposed, or presented. This leads to inevitable conflict.
"People have always been upset by insensitivity and negligence, but the profile of offendedness, understood in this modern sense, is being immeasurably heightened," suggests Professor Helm. "The right never to be offended, never to suffer feelings of hurt or shame, is being touted and promoted both by the media and by the government and interest in it is being continually excited." Thus, "Claims to be hurt or shamed are noticed. They are likely to be rewarded."
The very idea of civil society assumes the very real possibility that individuals may at any time be offended by another member of the community. Civilization thrives when individuals and groups seek to minimize unnecessary offendedness, while recognizing that some degree of real or perceived offendedness is the cost the society must pay for the right to enjoy the free exchange of ideas and the freedom to speak one's mind.
Professor Helm is surely right when he argues that the "social value" of offendedness is now increasing. All that is necessary for a claim to be taken seriously is for the claim to be offered. If the essence of the offendedness is an emotional state or response, how can any individual deny that a claimant has been genuinely offended? Professor Helm is right to worry that this will lead to the fracturing of society. "We all hear things we don't like said about people and causes that we are fond of but in the changed social atmosphere we are being encouraged to give public notice if such language offends us. I am now being repeatedly told that I am entitled not to be offended. So -- from now on -- not offended is what I intend to be. Does this heightening of sensitivity make for social cohesion? Does not such cohesion depend rather on enduring what we don't like, and doing so in an adult way? Does not the glue of civic peace rest on such intangibles as the ability to laugh at oneself, to take a joke about even the deepest things? And is it not a measure of the strength of a person's religion that they tolerate the unpleasant conversation of others?
Given our mandate to share the Gospel and to speak openly and publicly about Jesus Christ and the Christian faith, Christians must understand a particular responsibility to protect free speech and to resist this culture of offendedness that threatens to shut down all public discourse.
Of course, the right for Christians to speak publicly about Jesus Christ necessarily means that adherents of other belief systems will be equally free to present their truth claims in an equally public manner. This is simply the cost of religious liberty.
An interesting witness to this point is Salman Rushdie, the novelist who was once put under a Muslim sentence of death because he had insulted Muslim sensibilities in his novel The Satanic Verses. Mr. Rushdie presents an argument that Christians must take seriously.
"The idea that any kind of free society can be constructed in which people will never be offended or insulted is absurd. So too is the notion that people should have the right to call on the law to defend them against being offended or insulted. A fundamental decision needs to be made: do we want to live in a free society or not? Democracy is not a tea party where people sit around making polite conversation. In democracies people get extremely upset with each other. They argue vehemently against each other's positions," Rushdie insists.

As the novelist continues: "People have the fundamental right to take an argument to the point where somebody is offended by what they say. It is no trick to support the free speech of somebody you agree with or to whose opinion you are indifferent. The defense of free speech begins at the point where people say something you can't stand. If you can't defend their right to say it, then you don't believe in free speech. You only believe in free speech as long as it doesn't get up your nose."
As the Apostle Paul made clear in writing to the Corinthians, the preaching of the Gospel has always been considered offensive by those who reject it. When Paul spoke of the cross as "foolishness" and a "stumbling block" [ 1 Corinthians 1:23] he was pointing to this very reality -- a reality that would lead to his own stoning, flogging, imprisonment, and execution.
At the same time, Paul did not want to offend persons on the basis of anything other than the cross of Christ and the essence of the Christian Gospel. For this reason, he would write to the Corinthians about becoming "all things to all people, that by all means I might save some" [ 1 Corinthians 9:22].
Without doubt, many Christians manage to be offensive for reasons other than the offense of the Gospel. This is to our shame and to the injury of our Gospel witness. Nevertheless, there is no way for a faithful Christian to avoid offending those who are offended by Jesus Christ and His cross. The truth claims of Christianity, by their very particularity and exclusivity, are inherently offensive to those who would demand some other gospel.
Christians must not only contend for the preservation and protection of free speech -- essential for the cause of the Gospel -- we must also make certain that we do not fall into the trap of claiming offendedness for ourselves. We must not claim a right not to be offended, even as we must insist that there is no such right and that the social construction of such a right will mean the death of individual liberty, free speech, and the free exchange of ideas. There simply is no right not to be offended, and we should be offended by the very notion that such a right could exist.

See other recent entries on Dr. Mohler's blog.
R. Albert Mohler, Jr. is president of The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky. For more articles and resources by Dr. Mohler, and for information on The Albert Mohler Program, a daily national radio program broadcast on the Salem Radio Network, go to www.albertmohler.com. For information on The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, go to www.sbts.edu. Send feedback to mail@albertmohler.com.


Does that mean that we shouldn't take offense at corporations like Target who want their employees (whom they pay) to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas," since it is the right of those employers to ask this on the basis of inclusivity?

I doubt if Mohler's defense of not being offended would go that far....

Just thinking out loud.... No offense....:eek::basic05

CWC

[Charlotte Mercer]

Well, I think I agree with it, but it seems to be easier said than done, particularly since at least some of us were born and raised in a culture that has that mentality.

[Charlotte Mercer]

Does that mean that we shouldn't take offense at corporations like Target who want their employees (whom they pay) to say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas," since it is the right of those employers to ask this on the basis of inclusivity?

I doubt if Mohler's defense of not being offended would go that far....

Just thinking out loud.... No offense....:eek::basic05

CWC

I think it does go that far. I felt like it was saying that we don't need to be offended when other people support non-Christian winter holidays, just like we don't want non-Christians to be offended when we celebrate Christmas. He says that the only way you can truly support free speech is if you still believe that people who disagree with you have the right to voice their opinions. But I think it may have also been saying that we ought to learn to let some things go. It looked to me like it was saying that we don't have the right to not be offended. So, basically, even if you're offended, part of keeping the peace and, for Christians, part of loving our neighbors as ourselves is being able to say "I disagree with the way you do things, but you still have value," and just learning to disagree without feeling indignant or belittled. Or even learning to deal with indignation and belittling comments or actions more graciously. That seems to be the message I get from the bible too. People will disagree with you, and people will do things that you disagree with, but we need to learn how to deal with that in a wholesome and loving way.

[Charles W Christian]

I think it does go that far. I felt like it was saying that we don't need to be offended when other people support non-Christian winter holidays, just like we don't want non-Christians to be offended when we celebrate Christmas. He says that the only way you can truly support free speech is if you still believe that people who disagree with you have the right to voice their opinions. But I think it may have also been saying that we ought to learn to let some things go. It looked to me like it was saying that we don't have the right to not be offended. So, basically, even if you're offended, part of keeping the peace and, for Christians, part of loving our neighbors as ourselves is being able to say "I disagree with the way you do things, but you still have value," and just learning to disagree without feeling indignant or belittled. Or even learning to deal with indignation and belittling comments or actions more graciously. That seems to be the message I get from the bible too. People will disagree with you, and people will do things that you disagree with, but we need to learn how to deal with that in a wholesome and loving way.

I think that is a great interpretation. I was sort of being tongue-in-cheek here, because many who tend to quote Mohler have been heavily involved in what they called the "war on Christmas." So, is Mohler now saying that his friends should just "get over it," or is Mohler saying that people should not be offended with things that don't offend HIM? I hope it's the former; my hunch would be that it's the latter....

Thanks,
CWC

[Anne and Dwayne Hood]

If we fail to stand up for things pertaining to Christianity (in a kind way), everything pertaining to Christianity in our culture may, eventually, be taken away, and removed from our society, and culture.

[Charles W Christian]

If we fail to stand up for things pertaining to Christianity (in a kind way), everything pertaining to Christianity in our culture may, eventually, be taken away, and removed from our society, and culture.

Anne-
I think the key phrase there is "in a kind way," which is often sorely lacking from many who purport to speak for Evangelicals these days.

Also, I believe most Evangelical "leaders" (like Mohler and Dobson, etc.) are far too selective about which Christian things they take a stand about! This is not new to Evangelicals, sadly. Remember that in the 50s and 60s, for example, very strong Evangelical voices, both in and out of Congress, we standing "for" some things that were "Christian", but at the same time standing firmly against the idea of equality!!

Today, they are not so brash (although some take racist stands in more subtle ways). Today we have Dobson and the like taking stands against gay marriage -- which is fine to do, I guess. However, he opposes those trying to teach that God teaches us to take care of the environment (remember the recent unsuccessful charge he led to try to oust a fellow-Evangelical from the National Association of Evangelicals -- a group that Dobson is not even a MEMBER of??!!).... Anyway, I guess I'm saying that hypocrisy kind of seems to cancel out of a lot of the so-called "good" that some of these folks are doing! Didn't Jesus and other NT (and OT) folks tell us to beware of these kinds of "teachers"???

Yet, many well-meaning Christians, including Nazarenes by the ton, ignore the biblical advice and give these hypocritical folks a free pass on nearly everything!

I guess that's the part that bothers me....

Thanks,
Charles

PS - This "rant' was not directed to anyone in particular.... :basic03

CWC

[Bruce Carriker]

He says that the only way you can truly support free speech is if you still believe that people who disagree with you have the right to voice their opinions.

This is precisely why I oppose school prayer. Those who support school prayer ONLY support prayer to the God of the Christian Bible. But we live in a pluralistic society. So, if my choice is school prayer where the Muslims, Buddhists, Sikhs, Wiccans, Satanists all get "their turn" to lead school prayer for my daughters; or a society where I, as the parent, will be responsible for teaching my children to pray daily, I'll take option two.

I know this sort of goes off on a tangent, but just how offended would we be if the little Paganist across the street demanded their turn to lead the classroom prayer? Yet we would demand our "right" for our children to lead Christian prayer. We can, and should, pray for the poor little Paganists, but we don't have a right, at least in America, to silence them.

[Dale Cozby]

The truth claims of Christianity, by their very particularity and exclusivity, are inherently offensive to those who would demand some other gospel.......the preaching of the Gospel has always been considered offensive by those who reject it........Paul did not want to offend persons on the basis of anything other than the cross of Christ and the essence of the Christian Gospel....many Christians manage to be offensive for reasons other than the offense of the Gospel. This is to our shame and to the injury of our Gospel witness.


I find that is much easier to offend than to be offended. My wife says I am Teflon coated.

If Target wants to force its employees to say "HH" instead of "MC" they have the right to ask them to do so.

But the employee has the right to quit or violate the rule and get written up.
I likewise have the right to not shop there, but shop somewhere I feel more appreciated and pandered to.

Will they get offended if we tell them why we choose not to work/shop there? Do they have the right to be offended that I am offended by thier offensive practices? Hmmm.......:rolleyes::fav03

So in a nutshell....we can offend when no offense is intended by just being who we are and by disagreeing with someone who thinks everybody should think and speak as they do. And if you think differently....well you could at least just shut-up about it.:p

[Roland Hearn]

I would have to say that the ability of Christians to be offended by the failure of a secular society to pay adequate lip service to the spiritual component of an otherwise secular event is probably a little obtuse.

My personal view is we should love Christmas and our other holidays revel in what they mean and celebrate the opportunities it provides to be gracious to our secular neighbors who ever they may be. I really don't need to go looking for opportunities to be offended or to be offensive.

[John Kennedy]

I think we've all run into (and still do) people who regard 'offense' as being like a dietary supplement. They take as much of it as they can whenver they can.

Dr. Seuss (sp?) wrote a book on "How the Grinch Spoiled Christmas". I think a lot of well-meaning Christians allowed some bone-headed management decisions of some businesses and agencies to spoil their Christmas.

I've seen people ready to make war on Walmart over the 'happy holiday' issue. God knows there are a numer of things maybe Christians ought to go to war with Walmart about (wage and personnel policies, etc) but the use of Happy Holidays rather than Merry Christmas sure isn't one of them.

I participate in the celebration of two Christmases: the sacred one that celebrates the birth of a saviour and the secular one that is, despite some of the excesses, a celebration of peace and good will.

As a Christian I know that ultimate in peace and good will is only found in Christ, but I'm sure not going to take offense at those who are making some attempt in that direction.

As Christians, we stand a much better chance at pointing people to the source of true peace and good will if we don't go around all bent out of shape about this, that, or the other failure to grasp the true significance of the season.

[Roland Hearn]

I think we've all run into (and still do) people who regard 'offense' as being like a dietary supplement. They take as much of it as they can whenver they can.

Dr. Seuss (sp?) wrote a book on "How the Grinch Spoiled Christmas". I think a lot of well-meaning Christians allowed some bone-headed management decisions of some businesses and agencies to spoil their Christmas.

I've seen people ready to make war on Walmart over the 'happy holiday' issue. God knows there are a numer of things maybe Christians ought to go to war with Walmart about (wage and personnel policies, etc) but the use of Happy Holidays rather than Merry Christmas sure isn't one of them.

I participate in the celebration of two Christmases: the sacred one that celebrates the birth of a saviour and the secular one that is, despite some of the excesses, a celebration of peace and good will.

As a Christian I know that ultimate in peace and good will is only found in Christ, but I'm sure not going to take offense at those who are making some attempt in that direction.

As Christians, we stand a much better chance at pointing people to the source of true peace and good will if we don't go around all bent out of shape about this, that, or the other failure to grasp the true significance of the season.

John, I really enjoyed this post. The thanks button didn't quite convey how adequately I felt you said this. I like the idea of two Christmases. That is the way I see it too.