Without doubt, there are words in our time that have undergone significant change in meaning. Many of these are obvious. One needs only to ask “What is a woman” to understand the self-destructive impact that word warfare can have upon a society.
But, like in the parable, I believe it to be the more subtle changes that have the greatest potential for harm. The undetectable imitations, that, like the servants, most of us don’t even think to consider… let alone perceive. It is the enemy’s ability to first mimic, and then distort the meanings of virtue that make us most vulnerable to weeding out our own essential resources.
As example: I’ll use a virtue which is particularly prone to distortion. Kindness.
Remember, all warfare is based on deception
And Satan is wise and subtle –
Imagine being engaged in wheat and tare warfare where the wheat represents kindness. What tactics might the enemy use to most effectively corrupt fields of kindness.
Taking this approach, you can almost imagine the devil brainstorming the ideal counter to kindness. As if he asked himself, “If kindness was wheat…what would be its tare?”
With the high aim to achieve, if possible, of convincing mankind to invert the virtue, so that, over time, the tare takes on the title of kindness and the wheat is termed the counterfeit.
In truth, the devil really has a lot of material to work with.
Now, as I enter this portion of the discussion, there are those of you who fear that what is forthcoming from me is an attack ON the virtue of kindness. I would like to be very clear here. What is forthcoming is NOT an attack on kindness. It is an attack upon those who would defile her. This is an effort to PROTECT kindness as a virtue. Because by her nature, kindness cannot protect herself. She is defenseless. It falls upon other virtues to protect her. Courage, Truth, Common Sense must stand their guard so that Kindness may choose to reveal herself at the most opportune moments, and save herself that she might be made manifest in her most mature and impactful form – CHARITY.
First allow me to establish that I am not alone in believing that kindness is particularly vulnerable to modification in meaning or semantic imitation. Respectable philosophers, historians and Christian apologists have previously commented on the mutability of kindness.
Aristotle, for example. He gave a discourse on kindness 300+ years before Christ. Surprisingly the discourse is quite comprehensive. Providing a substantial definition of the word as well as a categorical assessment of what doesn’t qualify as KIND.
In discussing a discourse given 2400 years ago, I should acknowledge the realities of analyzing old translated texts, including the Bible. As with any translation, there will always be discrepancies to some extent between the original and the translated version. The fact that no two languages have an exact word-to-word translation ratio means that all translations will have an inherent imperfection. That level of imperfection increases when translating abstract concepts – like KINDNESS. Such translation discrepancies also increase over time. By the nature of semantics, words are prone to change meaning over time. The more time the more potential for change. For example, and specific to our topic, kind (as used to mean benevolent, or nice ) did not even exist in the English language until the 14th century. Previous to then, the term kind was only used in reference to one’s nation or family, as in the term kin, which is similar to the kind homonym we use today, meaning a type of thing.
The very important point here is that translations of the word “kind” as a virtue spoken of by Aristotle, Peter, Paul, and Christ must be regarded under proper circumstances. Subject to over two thousand years of semantic changes in addition to the regular discrepancies of translation. The virtue of kindness we THINK we understand in modern day may very well not be in absolute alignment with the VIRTUE spoken of in ancient times.
Okay…on to Aristotle. This discourse comes from Rhetoric, The Art of Rhetoric – a work on methods of persuasion taken from lectures Aristotle gave to his students.
He provides the following 4th century definition of kindness:
To take Kindness next: the definition of it will show us towards whom it is felt, why, and in what frames of mind. Kindness — under the influence of which a man is said to “be kind” — may be defined as helpfulness towards some one in need, not in return for anything, nor for the advantage of the helper himself, but for that of the person helped.
The definition he provides is precise, placing limits on what can be termed kindness. Limits that call into question what we currently qualify as kindness 2400 years later.
As Aristotle continues, he discusses how to ensure a debating opponent keeps their use of kindness strictly to the limits of the definition given. This is something we’ll discuss in further detail later. But it’s significant that even then, kindness was known to be vulnerable to misuse – that kindness was being claimed when, by definition, an act was not actually kind. This is an extremely important point. This indicates that the concept of kindness, regardless of the language or time of use, is prime for doublespeak manipulation, insidious imitation in addition to the customary plain old “phonecall” deviations.
Our next professional reference is C.S. Lewis. Here are two bits of what Lewis offers on kindness confusion as it stood in 1940, in his writing on The Problem of Pain:
C. S. Lewis:
“There is kindness in Love; but Love and kindness are not coterminous, and when kindness is separated from the other elements of Love, it involves a certain fundamental indifference to its object, and even something like contempt of it” (32).
Lewis draws our attention to the connection between kindness and love.
In this first quote, he makes a distinction between the two, regarding kindness as an aspect of love…but not the totality of it. He determines that when kindness is separated from the more substantial parts of LOVE, that all that remains is obligatory social pleasantry. And we all know what he means. Each of us, from one extent to another, ME more than most, are consistently working to exhibit the PERSONA of kindness. Sometimes, the kind PERSONA even being wielded to ironically irritate another – as the euphemism goes – Kill ‘em with Kindness.
Lewis’s second statement on Love and Kindness recognizes that when the two words ARE used synonymously, their use indicates most commonly a principle stripped of much of its virtue. Reduced to mean simply – the contentment of others without mind for the cost – don’t worry…they’re happy.
C.S. Lewis:
“By Love, in this context, most of us mean kindness—the desire to see others than the self happy; not happy in this way or in that, but just happy. What would really satisfy us would be a God who said of anything we happened to like doing, ‘What does it matter so long as they are contented?’ We want, in fact, not so much a Father in Heaven as a grandfather in heaven—a senile benevolence who, as they say, ‘liked to see young people enjoying themselves,’ and whose plan for the universe was simply that it might be truly said at the end of each day, ‘a good time was had by all’. Not many people, I admit, would formulate a theology in precisely those terms: but a conception not very different lurks at the back of many minds”(31).
So…the brilliance here of CS Lewis on the issue of kindness IS NOT that HE reduces its virtue. Instead, it’s that he recognizes its COMPLEXITY. Because the difficulty of kindness is only partially in its practice. The CONUNDRUM with kindness is that we SPEAK of it AS IF it’s ONLY SIMPLE. Simple as merely the mindless appeasement of others.
Lewis makes the observation that kindness resides on the LOVE as a VIRTUE spectrum. And for anybody with more than five minutes experience in any human relationship, you know, there is nothing more complex than the principle of love. It stretches from the simplicity of Christ’s invitation to “suffer the little children to come unto me, and forbid them not” (a KIND statement I’d think we’d all agree) to the act of God sacrificing his only Son for the benefit of everything wretched.
CSLewis saw that the adversary could utilize kindness by semantically simplifying its meaning. Instead of being defined as helpfulness to someone with a genuine need as Aristotle defined it, the adversary may have thought: why not warp kindness to mean something more like enabling contentment in others.
Because – and this is wickedly brilliant – WHO would ever DARE SAY that aiming to make other people content is a BAD thing.
With that wickedly brilliant idea – this makes for a good moment to insert a small thinking exercise. So consider this:
For an act to qualify as kind, is it necessary that the person who is helped be content as a result of the act?
I’m gonna restate that cause you’re gonna press pause and think this out for a minute or two.
If you help a person, and that person is not pleased with your help, does that disqualify your act from being termed kind?
Alright…press pause…and work this over in your brain. See what you run into.
PAUSE!!!
Is your mind spinning? Mine is. And this ain’t my first rodeo with kindness.
Your initial reaction to the prior question
“Do the feelings of the person helped affect whether an act is kind?”
Your initial thought may have been something like “Of Course Not. How someone else reacts to my acts has no bearing on whether I qualify as virtuous.”
Every parent knows this to be true. Ingratitude of those served does not negate the virtue of the server.
For myself, I need only remember when my 2 year old was disgusted with the purple lollipop I got her. She wanted the pink one. The irrationality of my kid does not negate the virtue value I’ve sincerely invested.
But…how can that be. Because, when we perform kind acts, we do so to SPECIFICALLY lighten someone’s load. Isn’t that the whole point of kindness, to make someone else FEEL better. And if a person doesn’t perceive our act as having a positive effect, or if in actuality, our act intended for good makes things worse, can we say that we’ve earned the title of being kind.
The reality is is that Kindness – when you really put some thought to it – becomes obscure very quickly.
Which is weird.
I mean…we ARE talking about the single most emphasized virtue in our society. How could its parameters be SO difficult to delineate?
My point here is that…in the many ways we use the word “kindness”…it is not easy to define. Kindness “the word” means many different things in many different situations.
As I mentioned in the prior episode, I have put considerable thought into the meaning of kindness for some time. So much so that I’ve come to cringe at what I consider to be its misuse. To be honest, COVID did a number on the concept of kindness. And not just for me, but for all of Christendom. Kindness, or the lack thereof, became one of THE LEAD TERMS USED to SHAME people for thinking critically, using logic, and acting with individual agency.. I consistently struggled with how such a beautiful virtue could be twisted against reasonable thinking.
It was in this struggle that I had several small realizations. The first was realizing that the virtue of kindness was falling prey to doublespeak, the obscuring of words and their meanings to influence an emotional audience – the concept discussed in the previous episode. The second was realizing the psychological difference in value between kind and UNKIND. The two ARE NOT OPPOSITE BUT EQUAL concepts. To be kind during COVID was no better than acting as socially expected, conforming to the norm. The path which was, without doubt, the easier to walk socially and emotionally. However, to be UNKIND was contemptuous, malicious, even borderline murderous. In the least it was worthy of open character assassination. In my own dental office, where we gave our patrons the choice as to whether or not they wore facial coverings themselves, we were accused of “killing babies.” The reasoning – there were newborn babies in a local hospital, babies who were born with serious complications unrelated to COVID, babies who never left the hospital ICU, a place where masks are worn religiously, there were babies who were dying who also happened to test positive for COVID. Our policy of “not enforcing kindness” was complicit in the deaths of those children.
It was the reasoning of this particular parent that enlightened me to my third realization:
People seem to compute kindness as they would an equation. This act plus this item equals this result. The more I thought about it the more I realized – Kindness is oddly analogous to – MATHEMATICS. And this would be excellent if kindness and mathematics were limited to the realm of simple arithmetic, both cognitively simple and straightforward. BUT…they are not. There are many different types of math. There are many different types of kindness
Math, in its simplest form, is easy to understand. A one year old knows that two marshmallows is preferable to one. And over the next few years, that same kid will learn that 2 marshmallows plus three marshmallows equals 5 marshmallows.
Like math, kindness, at its primary stage, is a principle that is easy to teach. At its foundation is the desire to please others. A primal desire that, together with its counterpart, shame, lays the emotional foundation for all individuals to learn about the pluses and minuses of behavioral interactions in a social existence.
But math doesn’t stop at merely plus this…or minus that – even though, as a concept, math is easiest to describe using simple arithmetic. Algebra, trigonometry, geometry, calculus. These have all drastically changed the overall welfare of the human race.
When it comes to calculations of kindness, mankind seems to have lost the ability to reason equations with even simple variables. As Christians, in particular, when an X factor gets thrown at us…we have a hard time computing anything but the basics.
And that may be because, for Christians, the Sermon on the Mount sets the foundation for Christian kindness.
Much like arithmetic is the primary level for all math…
Kindness, as interpreted in Christ’s first public sermon, is KINDNESS at a PRIMARY LEVEL. (I say ‘interpreted’ here because Matthew’s version of Christ’s sermon on the mount – the version we most commonly refer to – does not mention the word kindness. Though the topic matter clearly focuses on principles of benevolent interaction.) Anyway, so kindness, the type spoken of in the Sermon on the Mount, is KINDNESS at a primary level.
Some of you may cringe when you hear me describe it that way BUT it’s important to remember…the Sermon on the Mount was Christ’s first public introduction as a teacher of principles. It makes sense in such a situation, a new face with new ideas, to lead with primary principles. Principles slightly modified from the current cultural standards to set oneself apart. But at the same time, principles that are easily understood. Basic principles. The doctrines of Christ at a kindergarten level.
Now, that doesn’t mean these principles aren’t important. That which falls under the umbrella of Kindergarten kindness is foundational to understanding higher levels of Christlike attributes… higher level traits like love and sacrifice.
So it’s here, on the mount that Christ establishes principles such as:
Judge not that ye be not judged
As well as
the Golden Rule
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
These are excellent rules of thumb for customary interactions and undeveloped social relationships. Those relationships that have potential to become much stronger. It is A kindness that enables potential in primary type relationships. Without this type of kindness, no higher kindness – meaning love, sacrifice or charity – could exist.
But what if we were to mistakenly assume the Sermon on the Mount was directed to a bunch of Christian theologians from the 21st century. People who knew they were listening to God and interpreted his words as if he was giving them the answers to all of life’s social dilemmas. You know, the type of people who might walk away from the Sermon on the Mount thinking they’d just been taught ALL the secrets answers of human interaction.
I say this because this is similar to the mind frame in which we analyze the beatitudes today.
Well…what if kindergarten students were convinced that because they were taught arithmetic as the foundational principle – that any concept outside of arithmetic would be considered mathematical heresy.
With each new math concept introduced, it’s easy to understand how a child would be frustrated with “NEW MATH.”
Ummm, Mrs. Teacher…I know math. And I’m sorry to have to tell you this but… your math is wrong. You see…you have the numbers 2 and 3 by each other…and they together make 5. You have it written that they make the number 6. Your math is wrong.
Now, In this situation, you, as the teacher, would recognize that adding a new dimension like multiplication to what the child understands about “MATH” will take some time and effort.
Throwing percents and exponents or derivatives at this kid right now would only convince him that you, the teacher, can’t be trusted with numbers.
For people who have spent the time and effort of learning the progressive principles and real life application of mathematical concepts, we don’t struggle with understanding how, for example, the numbers 4 and 2, if arranged differently, can account for answers of -2, 2, 6, -6, 8, -8, 16 etc.
Unlike math though, we tend to teach kindness only to a level of simple social interaction. And I think I understand why – I mean who wants to teach second level kindness as a follow up to Christ as the teacher of the introductory class.
But I think that may be a lack of faith in ourselves. A bit of talent burying if you will. A fear that we can’t expound on the wisdom which has been given us for fear of losing it.
I believe that It’s better to have the courage to step out of the boat and fail than to allow the fear of exercising faith to prevent us from acting in the first place…With one caveat… I must be willing to concede my mistakes and learn from them.
NOW…with that understanding… If you have a desire to comprehend kindness more fully, you’ll want to prepare yourself for discomfort. Because progress requires effort – adjustment. Like when you knew how to add, but then learned about multiplying. You’re dealing with figures you thought you understood, but then realize the concept has entirely NEW dimensions. Dimensions that, if you choose to ignore, you will limit your potential to progress.
Leave a Reply