Dear one,
“Loose lips sink ships …” is a phrase that I associate with WW II. Whether or not loose lips did sink ships, I do not know—although I do know that sound can carry across water, whereby one’s presence and position might be plotted by enemy ears—but apparently the Roosevelt administration of 1942-45 promoted the expression, in order to quell false rumors and/or negative information. Presumably that administration understood the power of human words, and therefore, counter playground etiquette and philosophy, understood that sticks and stones can break bones, and that words cannot only hurt, but can cripple and destroy.
Recently I’ve given renewed thought to Paul’s letter written to the Ephesian church. From my perspective, the letter is well crafted. The first three chapters focus upon who the Ephesians were in Christ: by grace through faith they had received a new identity: they were God’s workmanship (literally they were God’s “poem,” ποίημα), created in Christ Jesus, that they might walk in good works (Ephesians 2:10); and by grace through faith they had experienced an unimagined unity: Jew and Gentile worshipping together, thus transcending the great cultural, ethnic, racial, and religious divides, which had separated them (2:15).
This in part is who they were in Christ. But then, in the last three chapters, the focus shifts: the imperative replaces the indicative. The Ephesians were to become who they were. For instance, the first major imperative is that they were “to walk in a manner worthy of their calling”: that is, they were to uphold one another in love, seeking to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (4:3). The second major imperative is that they were to “put off” the old ways of relating and behaving—the old habits—and “put on,” like a monk’s habit, new ways of relating. And chief among these was speaking the truth in love, each one with her/his neighbor (4:15, 25).
However, this “truth-speaking” did not always mean sharing pleasantries or banal observations about the weather; rather, at moments it might necessitate anger. If so, nonetheless “be angry but sin not” was to be the modus operandi; moreover, within the context of this Ephesian letter, “sin” could be defined as any word or action, any behavior or attitude that does not uphold, build-up, and/or encourage another.
In a culture that purportedly longs for unity, while simultaneously using words as bludgeons, may we recognize that loose lips sink marriages, families, churches, communities, and nations.
Writing in love,
Stan