By Randall Smith

A Protestant friend told me recently that he heard a woman professor say that the Bible is filled with "oppressive discourse." Some people talk this way and teach others to do so as well. Some even demand that Biblical language or discourse based on Biblical language be banned. (Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr. would have run afoul of these people constantly and have little left to say.)

How to respond? I suppose we could begin with a simple: "No, the Bible is not filled with oppressive discourse, but you seem to be." But since "so's your old man" is rarely an effective argument, perhaps we should say more.

Let me suggest that the main problem with this woman's claim is that it exhibits a disturbing lack of self-awareness, and this of two sorts. First, she seems unaware that what counts as "oppressive" has much to do with the presuppositions one brings to the dialogue, especially one's presuppositions about human nature and human flourishing.

If I say, "That young man would make a good father," that's not oppressive discourse if being a father is a good thing. If I say, "That young man would make a good, hard-working slave on my plantation," that's oppressive discourse.

If I say, "That young woman would make a good mother," that's not oppressive discourse. If I say, "That young woman would make a good lawyer," that's not oppressive discourse. If I say, "That young woman would make a good prostitute," that's oppressive discourse - in my opinion, given my views about human nature and human flourishing.

Now, granted, if a person assumed that motherhood was essentially "oppressive" the way I take prostitution to be essentially oppressive, then it would make sense to claim that it is wrong to praise women for being "good mothers," just as I would say it is wrong to praise a woman for being a "great prostitute." But the failure to see that claims of "oppressive discourse" are always tied to particular views of human nature and human flourishing can lead people to become guilty of "oppressive discourse" of another, more sinister kind.

For, often, the very language of "oppressive discourse" is itself oppressive and represents an effort to shut down and dominate others in an exertion of one's will to power. It is to say, in effect, that all other modes of discourse other than mine are unacceptable and must be suppressed.

There's a similar effect when you see a sign that says "Safe Space" and immediately feel unsafe, knowing that the person inside that room is likely to want you sanctioned or "canceled" if you use the wrong words - if your language does not meet the standards of the universal, totalizing discourse of the dominant cultural elite.

A "totalizing discourse," for those not accustomed to post-modern jargon, is a discourse of power used to dominate and oppress others by subsuming or excluding all other modes of discourse, categories, or accounts of reality.

So, for example, I might see a friend and say, "She's a wonderful mother." Now let's say someone hears me and says, "That's oppressive discourse." Is it? If a woman says to me, "I don't want to be a mother," I reply, "That's fine; there are other vocations." Mine is not a totalizing discourse. I have allowed for other approaches to human nature and human flourishing.

The person who scolded me has not. She has said, in effect, "You may not use language that implies that motherhood is a human good."

But I hold that motherhood is a human good. Not the only human good, but a human good. The demand that I not say that marriage is a human good out loud is oppressive - as oppressive as if I said to my interlocutor, "Motherhood is the only appropriate role for a woman, so you must not mention women becoming lawyers or doctors or having jobs outside the home."

I'm not denying that there are people who say things like that, but in my experience, they are few and far between. And if I heard someone say that motherhood is the only role for a woman, I would...