Apologetics and Freedom of Speech?
By Shafer Parker
I’m going to assume that most FBB blog readers are familiar enough with The Lord of the Rings that I don’t have to spend time explaining Ents, those thousands-of-years-old sentient beings who resemble the trees they care for, and who constitute one of J. R. R. Tolkien’s most original creations. Ents can speak any number of “outside” languages when they need to, but their own language, Old Entish, is reflective of their lives, which, like the trees they shepherd, are lived out over millennia and involve the slow contemplation of life and history as it unfolds around them. Treebeard explains his speech to the hobbits Merry and Pippin. “It is a lovely language, but it takes a very long time to say anything in it, because we do not say anything in it, unless it is worth taking a long time to say, and to listen to.”
“In my opinion Treebeard has cracked the nut of the problem of free speech. Officially, everybody favours it, but unofficially it is under world-wide attack. And part of the problem, I think, is that hardly anyone knows anymore what’s worth saying—or hearing.”
In my opinion Treebeard has cracked the nut of the problem of free speech. Officially, everybody favours it, but unofficially it is under world-wide attack. And part of the problem, I think, is that hardly anyone knows anymore what’s worth saying—or hearing. The only thing we can be sure of is that much of what is being said these days really does go under the designation of sadly missed opportunities to shut up. You can mark it down as a principle; speech will not long remain free if no one has anything worthwhile to say. This is where free speech needs to meet apologetics. One of the best ways for believers to maintain freedom of speech in Canada, and the world, is to make certain that what we have to say is worth saying, and then to say it, without regard to personal cost.
We’ll get back to apologetics and free speech in a minute, but first, let’s look at the loss of free speech in our world. Do you know about Samuel Paty? You should. He was the French middle-school teacher beheaded last month by an Islamic terrorist for committing the “crime” of showing his students a series of cartoons making fun of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, along with current Islamic leaders. Ironically, he committed this “crime” while teaching a class on freedom of expression. This, of course, was not the first time these cartoons had led to violence and murder. Their original publication in 2012 by the Paris-based satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo resulted in the killing of 12 magazine staffers and the injuring of 11 others.
Doubtless the cartoons were, and are offensive to many people of good will, but that should not in the slightest way legitimize the horrible acts that Islamic terrorists perpetrated in their name. Nor can it justify the French laws that, in the name of avoiding offense, try to keep all public religious expressions to a minimum—laws that are currently being imitated in Canada’s French-speaking province. People often fail to realize that a fundamental principle of Islam is the duty to defend the faith against blasphemers at all costs, and that as long as Islam exists there will be some Muslims prepared to wreak the most violent forms of vengeance possible against them. The question is, what are disciples of Christ prepared to do in a world where such people exist? It seems to me that if we are not prepared to do something, then free speech is lost already, as you will see in what comes next.
“The question is, what are disciples of Christ prepared to do…? It seems to me that if we are not prepared to do something, then free speech is lost already.”
Welcome to Ottawa’s hall of mirrors, otherwise known as the Canadian House of Commons, in which Prime Minister Justin Trudeau regularly tries to reflect back to every part of world culture exactly what each part wishes to see and hear. For example, after Paty’s murder, Trudeau was asked about the right to publish caricatures of the prophet Mohammed. “We will always defend freedom of expression,” he began. Of course, he must defend freedom of expression because he swore to defend the Canadian Constitution, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But that does not mean he believes in free speech. Trudeau went on to say, “Freedom of expression is not without limits. We owe it to ourselves to act with respect for others and to seek not to arbitrarily or unnecessarily injure those with whom we are sharing a society and a planet.”
At first glance I suspect that most Canadians would want to agree with him. But only until someone asks, “Does anyone have the right to speak up against those who, because of real or imagined personal and religious offence arbitrarily decide that “blasphemers” have lost their right to live?” Trudeau would say, “yes,” but there’s more to it than that. I don’t think it a stretch to infer from his language that he was signalling sympathy to the terrorists who took it upon themselves to impose Islamic justice on French citizens. Or if not sympathy for the terrorists, at least for the community that nurtured and supported them.
You think I’m pushing his underlying meaning too far? Then why did Trudeau go on to say, “In a pluralist and respectful society like ours, we owe it to ourselves to be aware of the impact of our words, of our actions on others, particularly these communities and populations who still experience a great deal of discrimination.” He apparently wants Canadians to think, “Ah, if we only stopped discriminating against certain unnamed ‘communities and populations,’ all would be brillig in our Canadian wabe.” But would it? In today’s overheated cultural climate, lack of discrimination is no longer enough. Whether it’s the Islamic world, the Black Lives Matter world, the Antifa world, the LGBTQ world, the transgender world, or in some cases certain political parties, the only way to avoid offense is to join them and sing their praises unendingly.
Now let’s get back to Treebeard and his declaration about language. He and his kind “do not say anything in [Old Entish], unless it is worth taking a long time to say, and to listen to.” I hope you realize that Tolkien is making the point that words and language shape the very fabric of the universe. Time and space are impacted by how we think and what we say—or what we’re prepared to say, and the price we’re prepared to pay in order to get it said. Here’s the thing. God is prepared to empower our words, but only so long as our speech includes words the Spirit can approve. You don’t agree? Here then, is a portion of Scripture that to my mind is one of the most neglected apologetics passages in the Bible.
John 16:7 Nevertheless, I tell you the truth: it is to your advantage that I go away, for if I do not go away, the Helper will not come to you. But if I go, I will send him to you. 8 And when he comes, he will convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgment: 9 concerning sin, because they do not believe in me; 10 concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you will see me no longer; 11 concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world is judged.
“God is prepared to empower our words, but only so long as our speech includes words the Spirit can approve.”
Let me close with a brief examination of this passage. First, this passage is a strong reminder of the goal of apologetics, that in response to our words men and women will be convicted of sin, persuaded that Jesus is Lord and Saviour, and motivated to escape judgment through faith in the Son of God. This is the purpose of apologetics, and the end game for all effective apologetics presentations. Second, Jesus is making the claim that apologetics is only effective when empowered by the Spirit. We need the Spirit to “convict” our hearers. And for those who argue that the Spirit doesn’t need us to convict people and bring them to faith, I will remind them of James 1:18 that says, “Of his own will he brought us forth (caused us to be born again) by the word of truth, that we should be a kind of firstfruits of his creatures.” In other words, the Spirit works to convict and inspire faith when we speak the “word of truth.”
That brings us back to things worth saying, and worth hearing. May God grant new weight to our words. May we dedicate ourselves to truth worth telling. Then, and only then, will we have hope that our apologetics will be powerful in the Spirit.
There’s one more thing to be said. The Spirit may choose to add value to our words by asking us to prove to the world the price we’re prepared to pay in order to say them. If it seems foolish to you to risk death for the sake of some admittedly profane cartoons, then consider what is worth dying for. Would you willingly die for John 3:16? The martyrs (witnesses) of the first three centuries anno Domini turned the world upside (right side up) by their willingness to make their words weighty, saying them without regard to their own personal fate.
Our world is upside down again. Who will pay the price to right it? Only those who are truly free in Christ, free enough to die for the privilege of defending “the faith once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3).
CHRISTIANS NEED TO STAND STRONG. YOU CAN HELP THEM.