“In-speak”
It was, until then, a pleasant conversation. I was part of a small group of pastors who have been close friends and colleagues for 25-plus years.
Somewhat out of the blue the one pastor made some disparaging remarks about what is going on in the United States and several others nodded and commented in agreement.
Only later did I realize what upset me so, but in the moment I simply said that a lot depends on where you get your news.
And bam! The pastor began reaming me out for assuming I knew better than she, that I was more enlightened because of the news sources I accessed. She made very clear that she indeed regularly consulted various news sources and her views were based on solid journalism.
It took me considerable time in the days that followed to climb down from my heightened anxiety and try to make sense of what happened. I realized my comment – “A lot depends on where you get your news” – wasn’t accurate nor helpful. What happened wasn’t about politics or journalism.
Unbeknownst to my conscious self, what had rankled me was the “in-speak”. I don’t know if there is a better term for it, but “in-speak” is when a group of people talk amongst themselves in highly opinionated ways with the clear implication that anyone who would dare to disagree with what is said is a doofus or worse.
It happens all the time in just about any circumstance. And if so what is the big issue?
“In-speak” does not strengthen and build relationships and community – it undermines it.
Very few of us have the courage, when we find ourselves disagreeing with “in-speak” happening around us, to raise our voices in disagreement. Indeed “in-speak” does not welcome disagreement, only agreement. If you don’t like what is said shut up or get lost.
In this era of culture wars, woke and anti-woke, polarization, etc., “in-speak” becomes a valuable tool to weed out the dissenters and embolden the warriors. “In-speak” implies possession of truth but in reality produces propaganda; biased information that is used to support or promote an ideological viewpoint.
What rankled me in that pastors’ gathering was that our discussion diverged into “in-speak” about Donald Trump and his government with the clear implication that all rational people can see the horrible things he is doing.
For most of my 40-plus years as a pastor I have fought long and hard for the church to be a place where we are careful about how we talk, where diversity of opinion is welcomed, where we try very hard to not sideline or marginalize people who don’t hold the correct opinions. The church ought to be a place where we can have robust discussions about issues, even politics, while respecting each other’s opinions.
It grieves me greatly how many churches tend to be more based on shared “in-speak” rather than respect and magnanimity for differences. In some congregations you would dare not admit you voted for Poilievre and the Conservatives, while in others likewise for Carney and the Liberals. And so many Canadian Christians show disdain for American Christians who voted for Trump.
Granted, “in-speak” can help congregations unite to do more; they can forge ahead because of the agreement in their midst. But at what cost, the exclusion of dissenting voices and opinions?
The price of embracing “in-speak” is more than trifling. One of the front-burner culture war issues in our midst is our response to the Israel-Gaza war. It is painful to see the divisions in our country around this matter. Even more so it is scary to see how “in-speak” has produced a subculture in which anti-semitism and Jew hatred has thrived, and threats and violence against Jews has increased substantially. Of course the other side would say it is scary to see how “in-speak” has produced tolerance of civilian deaths in Gaza.
Yet we soldier on in our respective “in-speak” groupings, ignoring the reality that more shouting and protests and threatening behaviour will never solve the issue. As such “in-speak” is a poison that undermines our communities, even our civilization. We became strong because our culture valued agreement and diversity, valued the importance of each individual.
And if there is any place where “in-speak” should be avoided it is the church. It may give us the temporary “high” of unanimous agreement, but almost always at the cost of truth.