War of Words
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." ~ Inigo Montoya, "The Princess Bride"
I imagine that Americans who keep to themselves and don’t raise their voices are covering their eyes and ears to shield themselves from the name “Harrison Butker.” The Kansas City Chiefs kicker is currently at the center of the American culture wars because of his commencement speech at Benedictine College earlier this month, and neither his defenders nor his critics will be swayed from their positions on what he said. Mr. Butker, as prideful as the man in the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, stands by his remarks and pats himself on the back for his “courage.”
I find it amusing when partisans criticize their opposites for misinterpreting Mr. Butker’s remarks because, whether they realize it or not, they are probably misinterpreting them also. People can infer different meanings from the same words as they interpret them through the lenses of their own beliefs, upbringing, and experiences. Even ostensibly objective reporting on an event isn’t immune from the response a particular word choice may elicit from its readers. Let me give you some examples as presented by Dustin Arand, attorney, and author of the book Truth Evolves:
These days, journalists at mainstream news outlets say “unhoused” rather than “homeless.” They say “undocumented immigrant” rather than “illegal immigrant.” And they say “enslaved person” instead of “slave.”
Now if you dig into why editors have recommended these usage changes, you’ll find plenty of cogent defenses. “Illegal” describes an act, not a person. “Unhoused” highlights the most relevant fact — that a person lacks shelter — and avoids the fuzziness of “home,” which refers not only to a place but to the nexus of relationships tied to that place. “Slave” is reductive, whereas “enslaved person” reminds us that these were whole human beings who also happen to have had these horrible things done to them.
But you’ll also find that editors usually only recommend these changes after they’ve been adopted by professionals—doctors, historians, psychologists, sociologists, etc. — many of whom are academics and/or scientists.
While these word changes came after much deliberation and consultation among professionals, they stand apart from their predecessors, which have their own cultural and linguistic origins. Therefore, readers assume bias where none was intended because the words don’t align with their favored usage, or they distrust the elites who determined the modifications. This puts editors in a tough spot trying to write for a broad audience, as Arand indicates:
Editors are forced to make choices regarding style and usage. On hot-button topics, those choices will necessarily be interpreted as biased by one side or the other. Editors may make a good-faith effort to justify their choices, arguing they’re as objective as it’s possible to be. But the public is likely to detect those changes and (if they’re perceived as happening too quickly) resent them, seeing them as an attempt to push a covert agenda.
“That’s because,” he says, “every word is an argument. Every word, with its various associations and connotations, invokes a web of related epistemic and ethical commitments.”
After reading Mr. Arand’s remarks, I went back and looked at the words Mr. Butker used in his speech, and I was spurred to address some of his choices. I’ve already expressed my primary objection to his presentation, which is that he exploited a celebratory event to deliver a speech intended to fan the flames of the culture wars.
Let me start by mentioning the misuse of two words: one that he used in his speech and a word used to describe something allegedly done to him afterward. These examples represent the inherent bias I discussed previously and why I never rely on headlines alone, nor do I read only one source about a particular event to understand it fully. I wrote previously about being a discerning consumer of news, and these are excellent examples of how I put my recommendations into practice.
Mr. Butker, in describing the cultural influences competing with his worldview, used the word “tyranny,” specifically in this context:
Our Catholic faith has always been countercultural. Our Lord, along with countless followers, were all put to death for their adherence to her teachings. The world around us says that we should keep our beliefs to ourselves whenever they go against the tyranny of diversity, equity, and inclusion. We fear speaking truth, because now, unfortunately, truth is in the minority. Congress just passed a bill where stating something as basic as the biblical teaching of who killed Jesus could land you in jail.
This statement is very typical of American conservative Christians, who devote countless blogs, books, podcasts, newspapers, radio and television programs, at least three cable news networks to include the most-viewed one in the nation, the entire Internet, and every available communication medium on the planet to expressing their views and telling everyone they are being oppressed and silenced for expressing them. This isn’t an original observation by any means; search for “Jon Stewart cancel culture,” and you can watch a particularly biting segment from The Daily Show on the absurdity of the conservative persecution obsession. Stewart’s money shot is that the only people being truly “canceled” today are those in the Republican Party who dare to stand against Donald Trump, including eight of the 10 members of Congress who voted to impeach him, with former Rep. Liz Cheney most prominent among them. However, the baseless claims of persecution by American Christians, who have the most religious freedom of any faith cohort in world history, aren’t where I want to direct your attention.
My friend Karen Swallow Prior, known for her many gifts to the world, including her newsletter The Priory on Substack, responded to my frustration with those who use the word "tyranny" to characterize public health measures implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic. She lamented:
That word “tyranny” has been drained of all meaning. Imagine what those burned at the stake would think of this use of the word.
We don’t even have to look at the horrific acts of antiquity to define tyranny against believers. Tyranny is “government by a ruler or small group of people who have unlimited power over the people in their country or state and use it unfairly and cruelly.” By that definition, what is happening to Christians outside of the United States can be accurately characterized as tyranny.
Open Doors’ World Watch List of countries “where Christians face the most extreme persecution” includes nations where, in 2024, 4,998 Christians were murdered, 4,125 Christians detained, and 14,766 churches and Christian properties were attacked. The United States isn’t on the list. In fact, Becket, a legal and educational firm devoted to religious liberty in America, declared:
In 2023, the [2023 Religious Freedom] Index score rose to 69–its highest score ever–and showed that despite generational differences and ideological divides, America’s commitment to religious liberty remained strong.
In my nearly 65 years of life, I’ve never been prevented from publicly worshipping or praying; even during the pandemic, supposedly a time of “tyranny” against the church, we continued to meet, whether outdoors, online, or indoors, with proper precautions taken. Not a single public service was canceled, and no government agencies stormed our property to shut us down. In fact, the government helped us with processes and procedures to allow us to operate continuously. Stores and libraries, physical and virtual, are stocked with Bibles, religious studies and commentaries, faith-based self-help books, and all manner of media, as faith-based music and films enjoy record sales. YouTube is awash with Christian media on demand; Christian content is available to every American with Internet access, and eight in ten Americans, including Christians, have unfiltered Internet access in their homes. How many Christians around the world would welcome this kind of “tyranny”?
While Mr. Butker laments the “tyranny” of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), state governments, college and university governing boards, and local school boards across the country are shutting down anything that looks like it might educate people about the history or current challenges of underrepresented people. Corporate DEI programs are under similar assault, and people like activist Christoper Rufo, who is largely credited with the DEI backlash, openly boast about their many victories as he leads ‘“the fight against the left-wing ideological regime.”
How could this possibly happen if “a ruler or small group of people” had “unlimited power” and were using it “unfairly and cruelly”?
This is one reason Mr. Butker’s speech didn’t pass my “Three ‘I’” test: was the primary intention to inform, inspire, or inflame? My desire in communicating with others is to either primarily inform or inspire and not to inflame intentionally, at least not as the primary objective of my communication. Admittedly, I have no control over how others will receive my words, and neither does Mr. Butker, but his choice of words, among them “diabolical,” “delusional,” “lies,” “degenerate,” and yes, “tyranny,” suggests a primary desire and intent to inflame.
Indeed, he is complicit, along with many who believe as he does, in taking the word “tyranny,” and as Karen said, “draining it of all meaning.” It’s insulting and a diminution of the tragic circumstances untold numbers of our Christian brothers and sisters around the globe endure daily. This leads me to the other misuse of a word that caught my attention.
Shortly after Mr. Butker’s speech went viral, an unauthorized post on the official Kansas City X account mentioned the suburb where he lives. It didn’t provide a specific street address or contact information—just the suburb's name. Moreover, the same information is publicly available online. I won’t say the name of the suburb here, but over 103,000 people live there, so without an actual street address, finding his house would be practically impossible for anyone who’s not a neighbor or doesn’t know him personally. Not long thereafter, another post apologized for the first one, calling it inappropriate and promising to identify who posted it so that corrective action could be taken.
That should have been the end of it. However, right-wing pundits and politicians jumped on the unauthorized post as evidence of left-wing skullduggery against a man who was exercising his religious liberty by delivering a conservative Catholic message at a conservative Catholic school. Because the nuns who founded and are affiliated with the school denounced his message, his remarks weren’t embraced by all Catholics, but that’s not where the wordplay comes in. The people coming to Mr. Butker’s defense accused Kansas City officials of “doxxing” him, and outlets like Fox News used the word in their headlines to stir outrage against the city.
Dictionary.com describes “dox” as a verb that means “to publish the private personal information of (another person) or reveal the identity of (an online poster) without the consent of that individual.” This information is usually specific enough that malicious actors can use it to harass or threaten the privacy or security of the targeted individual. While Andrew Bailey, Missouri’s attorney general, threatened to bring his office's full force and authority to bear on the city for violating Mr. Butker’s right to religious liberty, it’s highly unlikely that anyone could have targeted him with only the suburb name to work with, since no “private personal information” was provided. Based on the definition, this episode fails to qualify as “doxxing.” However, you wouldn’t know that unless you read past the breathless headlines.
The city employee responsible for the inappropriate post was discovered and let go. Yet, as Kansas City Star columnist Toriano Porter points out, someone was legitimately doxxed as a consequence of Mr. Butker’s speech:
You know who was outed, though? Two female city employees whose names were wrongly leaked all over the internet. Neither had anything to do with the post, according to [Kansas City mayor Quinton] Lucas. One, an African-American woman, had her name, face and address plastered on social media. She was subjected to hateful and racist rhetoric unsuitable to reprint in a family newspaper.
Now that he got his way, I’d like to see Bailey condemn the mob that came after Kansas City employees with death threats. My guess is he won’t.
To date, there is no evidence that Mr. Bailey is using his office's full force and authority to prosecute the people who posted the “personal private information” of these innocent city employees. None of the news outlets that decried the “doxxing” of Mr. Butker used that word in their descriptions of what happened to these women. Frankly, they didn’t report on what happened to these women at all. If I had relied solely on their reporting, I would have known only about the perceived injustice inflicted on Mr. Butker by a city employee with malicious intent.
Americans’ trust in journalism and politics is at an all-time low, and this example illustrates a failure of public responsibility by the right-wing media and a partisan attorney general who is supposed to serve all the citizens of his state, not just the ones with whom he agrees.
I mentioned in the beginning that Mr. Butker makes no apologies for his speech, which he perceives as consistent with his religious beliefs, and characterized his experiences in the wake of it as “some small suffering.”
His characterization of the backlash to his commencement speech as “suffering” is symptomatic of a society where partisans exaggerate criticism and use it as armor or a weapon against their ideological adversaries. The problem is that such hyperbole robs words of their impact to convey the gravity and significance of events or circumstances. Mia Staub of Christianity Today writes, “Overusing a word can take away its severity, making light of the heaviness it holds for those walking through dark valleys.”
The word “suffering” doesn’t resonate with me for a man who still has a job that pays him multiple millions of dollars, the support of his boss’s wife and daughter, and even more money today than yesterday since his jersey sales are topping the charts, not to mention the adoration of millions who agreed with his speech. I prefer to reserve that word for the millions of believers worldwide who risk their lives to worship Jesus, care for the oppressed, and share the Gospel.
Rather, Mr. Butker can take his place among the culturally conservative Christians, individuals and institutions, who revel in warring against the prevailing society and provoking anger and vitriol, wearing slights and insults as a badge of honor.
However, these are the very ones about whom Jesus declared, “Why do you call me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?” (Luke 6:46). Reflect on what He taught in the verses before uttering those words:
“But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. Do to others as you would have them do to you.
“If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
“Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
He also told them this parable: “Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into a pit? The student is not above the teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like their teacher. Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.” (Luke 6:27-42)
The Roman Empire was infamous for its brutality against its perceived enemies, and Christians were among the persecuted even though they had never raised arms against the regime. Yet, in times of crisis, it was the Christians who showed the most compassion toward Roman citizens, a fact that vexed Julian, the last pagan emperor:
“These impious Galileans not only feed their own poor, but ours also; welcoming them into their agapae, they attract them, as children are attracted, with cakes.”
Dr. Lee M. Jefferson, the Nelson D. and Mary McDowell Rodes Associate Professor of Religion at Centre College writes:
“…[E]arly Christians found value in caring for the sick and the poor, and such actions gave them identity as caregivers visible to any outsider, including polytheists. Christianity would continue to be identified by insiders and outsiders as a religion of healing following plagues…”
Dr. Jefferson credits sacrificial Christian charity with promoting the church's expansion, stating, “The context of illness, plagues, and healing in early Christianity and late antiquity was a factor in the growth and expansion of early Christianity.” With recent polls and studies indicating an unprecedented exodus of people from the faith, if we want to see churches thrive again, perhaps we should embrace legitimate suffering as a consequence of acts of compassion and care for others, even those who “hate” us, rather than the manufactured suffering of performative piety and provoked outrage. As I wrote previously, if hate is inevitable as a result of living the Christian life, let’s be hated for the right reasons.
Words matter to Jesus. He said:
“A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of” (Luke 6:25). He warns us that “everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken” (Matthew 12:36).
Even Christians will have to account for the carelessness of their language; by no means does this indicate they will lose their salvation, but I suspect Jesus did not say this idly. Numerous verses of Scripture speak to how “gracious words are like a honeycomb, sweetness to the soul and health to the body” (Proverbs 16:24), while “rash words are like sword thrusts” (Proverbs 12:18). James, the half-brother of Jesus and the first bishop of the church in Jerusalem, warns us that there is a dissonance between praising God while cursing others:
With the tongue we praise our Lord and Father, and with it we curse human beings, who have been made in God’s likeness. Out of the same mouth come praise and cursing. My brothers and sisters, this should not be. Can both fresh water and salt water flow from the same spring? My brothers and sisters, can a fig tree bear olives, or a grapevine bear figs? Neither can a salt spring produce fresh water. (James 3:9-12)
Mr. Butker says, “I can never forget that it is not people, but Jesus Christ who I’m trying to please." I believe he is sincere in his desire to please our Lord and Savior, but is there room in his worldview for the Christ who describes Himself as “gentle and humble in heart” (Matthew 11:29) rather than “unapologetic in [his] masculinity,” and whose ministry and disciples were funded by “women [who] were helping to support them out of their own means” (Luke 8:3) rather than “living [their] vocation as a wife and mother” and whose “lives really started when” they chose to follow Christ, who has “the words of eternal life” (John 6:68)?
And those are my last words on the topic!