In his speech "On the Rhetoric of a 'War on Terrorism'" Dr. Kyle Fedler, a religion professor at Ashland University, examines the use of words. His proposition is that words are powerful, and as a result, can influence the shaping of policy when it comes to war.
Dr. Fedler makes many fine points in his speech. One has to do with the "dehumanizing" of our enemies through our choice of words (i.e. referring to them as "the enemy" or "vermin"). As Christians, we acknowledge that all men (even enemies) have dignity and therefore must be treated with the utmost respect.
I agree with Dr. Fedler when he says, "Language is a powerful tool," and agree with his main supposition--that language, because it can exercise a powerful influence over people, should be used carefully. But readers should beware, some of Dr. Fedler's rhetoric should be scrutinized as well.
In reference to the 911 attack Fedler says, "Even if God could produce some good from these events, it would not help explain them."
Fedler's choice of words cast doubt upon God's ability to bring about good from the terrorist attacks. It even seems to go so far as to say that those Muslim men got the best of God on this one.
But these words (which I assume were purposely chosen being that this was a public speech) do not reflect the Bible's rhetoric of God's sovereign decree. The Bible is clear when it says that God "works all things according to the counsel of his own will" (Eph. 1:11). Even something as horrific as the 911 terrorist attack most certainly falls under Scripture's general category of "all things." As a result, even the 911 attacks were part of God's foreordained plan.
Admittedly, the intricacies of God's eternal decree is concealed to men. For this reason we must remember that the secret things belong to God and that we must adhere to what is revealed (Deut. 29:29). But when it comes to the dreadful acts of men and the question of "where was God in it?", we are not left to vain (or despairing, in Dr. Fedler's case) speculations. Joseph's words still remain true: "You meant it for evil, but God meant it for good." (Genesis 50:20).
But the sovereignty of God is not the only issue that perks one's attention in Fedler's speech on war rhetoric.
Fedler also seems to indicate a bit of a quibble with the Bible's masculine language. When speaking about the Devil, the Bible always refers to him with masculine pronouns. Yet Fedler suggests that there is room for debate regarding the devil's gender. In reference to an extreme quote from Anne Coulter Fedler says, "I can only imagine that the devil is licking his (or her) lips over the possibility of Coulter's all-out war on the just and unjust alike."
Had he referred to the devil in a neutral way (i.e. "it") we would have no cause to pause. For angels and demons are not sexual beings per se, like humans. But his insertion of the feminine pronoun makes us wonder if the Bible can be trusted when it speaks of the devil. Indeed, it leads me to wonder, if the gender of the devil is open for debate, why not discount the devil altogether. We could take it even a step further, since the Bible is not a guide in this instance, why should it be a guide at all?
Fedler rightly argues in his speech that a war on terrorism could easily slip into terrorism itself. But what concerns me is his attack on the Bible.
As Christians we affirm the plenary inspiration of Scripture. That is to say, we believe that every word of Scripture was given by God through the Spirit (2 Tim. 3:16) to be a lamp unto our feet and a light unto our path. As God's Holy Word, the rhetoric of the Bible is to be taken seriously, never adding to it or taking away from it. In other words, the words mean something, and they are there for a reason: To serve as the only infallible guide for life and faith.
If the Bible is not taken as one's guide for life, one cannot have clarity on life's greatest issues, as Dr. Fedler so beautifully illustrates. With it you may possess knowledge and peace, Without it one is left with confusion and, ultimately, despair.
