Sleight of Hand

“Let another man praise you, and not your own mouth;

A stranger, and not your own lips.” (Prov. 27:2)

The other day, while taking an unnecessary break from reading a book, I mindlessly opened Facebook and immediately saw a video  of a relatively young man walking and talking on stage, communicating to a large group of people, whom appeared to be listening attentively. Though there is little on social media that I find very insightful these days, I actually thought I might catch something worth listening to when the video started, but at the end of the video, a sleight of hand motivated me to write this.

It was not the blue check next to the magician’s – Speaker’s name that caused me to believe he must not be full of nonsense, since many men with blue checks next to their names say unreasonable things, but rather, I hoped that such a large number of people would not have gathered for at least one decent reason. My hope wasn’t entirely futile, for the Speaker seemed to be submitting his help to the audience.

The Speaker first communicated to the crowd that they must learn how to communicate better, to which I would agree. It seemed to me that this was going to be the Speaker’s main teaching point, and since the crowd must have had some clue of this before coming to learn from this Speaker, I figured the Speaker’s assertion wasn’t presumptuous. In any case, I believe that part of growing as a person involves continually becoming a better communicator, and no one is so good a communicator that he can’t improve his communication at all, so at this point in the video, I could have commended the Speaker for what he was trying to teach. That is, if he knew how to teach others how to communicate well.

The Speaker then began to speak with no enthusiasm and complete monotone, as he exemplified how unattractive, unappealing, and uninteresting his version of bad communication was. At this point in the video, it was clear to me that the Speaker believed that communicating well has at least something to do with how one communicates, to which I would agree. However, since the Speaker’s summation of poor communication emphasized how one speaks and did not include the importance of what one says, it seemed to me that such an illustration, perhaps unintentionally, suggests that if one wants to speak well, one must solely (or at least primarily) master how to speak, to which I would disagree.

The Speaker then said that the voice is a complex instrument that we were given at birth, to which I would emphatically agree; however, I did not agree with his following comment, which was that if we don’t know how to use our voice properly, it’s not our fault. Indeed, the Speaker implied that it’s not the audience’s fault that they didn’t know how to bring their words to life, because they’d never been properly taught how to use this complex instrument, to which a woman in the crowd, who the camera zoomed in on, acknowledged as though a light bulb went off in her head.

Though I disagreed with the implication that speaking well is simply a matter of aesthetics and not substance, and also the notion that middle-class westerners hold no blame for their lack of communication skills, at this point in the short promo video, I found these points of disagreement of minor importance in light of the Speaker’s respect for the human voice and his desire to help others to use it well. I still appreciated what appeared to me to be someone trying to help others cultivate a crucial skill – a skill I deem so important that it was my main subject of study in both my undergraduate and graduate studies. “The heart of the wise teaches his mouth, and adds learning to his lips” (Prov. 16:23).

The Speaker then gave his closing comment, which was that each member of his audience needed to learn how to communicate properly, so that “you can amplify to the rest of the world the best parts of who you are.” The promo video ended, leaving the viewer with the suggestion to learn more for a price.

When the video finished, my appreciation for the Speaker’s endeavor dissolved, because I knew this closing comment – this statement of approval – transformed his teaching into something that was not helpful, but indeed harmful. It would have been best if Anakin Skywalker never learned how to use the force since he joined the dark side, but unlike his slow and obvious transition into Darth Vader, the Speaker’s transition from God to godless was swift and quite covert.

Throughout history, many men have explicitly used God’s name inappropriately, and much has been said about this, but it seems to me that many men in modernity implicitly, perhaps subconsciously, misuse the name of God, and very little, if anything, is said of this. Though it is easy to recognize the misuse of God’s name in the statement, “God approves abuse”, the subtle, sly, and swift misuses of God’s name to uphold a command that is compelling to the listener is a bit more obscure. A sleight of hand often slips past the sights of men, and I find it worth calling out the contradiction in a mantra that, though seemingly harmless, and perhaps even well-meant, appeals to the part of man that, in the end, is quite harmful.

To understand my concern and conclusion, we must first recognize that the Speaker implicitly uses the name of God by holding a seminar and making statements about speech that are only valid if indeed God exists.

For example, when the Speaker treated the voice as a gift and an instrument, this led the listener to assume that just like every other gift and instrument, his voice is no accident. Indeed, if one assumes that the voice is an instrument that was given to him at birth, one presupposes an intentional Giver. To be sure, the voice is simply not a gift, nor anything like an instrument if humans are the chance effect of a universe that began without a cause and produced life through unguided forces and random mutations. The Speaker, therefore, borrowed God’s name in labelling the voice as a gift and instrument, and such labels validate the relevance of his teaching (Though I’m critiquing one particular video, it’s worth noting that the Speaker calls the voice an instrument quite regularly in other promo videos I’ve seen).

I will take for granted that the reader understands the voice is no gift if there is no Giver, but let me elaborate as to why labeling the voice as an instrument also presupposes God. To be sure, if the Speaker’s description of the human voice as an instrument is appropriate, then the human voice exists for a reason, just as a flute in the hands of a good flute player can release pleasant, rhythmic notes because this is the reason for which the flute was made by the flute maker. Perhaps the Speaker surreptitiously used this description for the voice while hoping the crowd wouldn’t notice what else must be true if their voice is an instrument. Perhaps he himself overlooked this truth by which the relevance of his proclamation depends. In any case, the Speaker’s treatment of the voice as an instrument clearly puts man at the mercy of his Maker.    

The Speaker also borrowed God’s name in his implication that there is a proper way to communicate, and that the human person has the ability to improve this ability. Indeed, the relevance of the Speaker’s seminar depends upon this conclusion, for if there is no proper way to speak, nor possibility of improving one’s speech, then the seminar is a waste of money. If there is a proper way for a human to be, which is dependent upon the personal abilities given to him before he could make choices (e.g., the ability to speak to others), and he is able to apprehend a reliable standard to evaluate and improve his speech, then Something personal and patient in his Creator.

To be sure, if there is no God, the voice is no gift, and there is no naturally proper way for a man to speak. Something that arises by chance is not a gift, nor is it to be any particular way. When the flute player blows into the flute, the flute ought to make a sound, because the flute maker gave it this function, and if the flute makes no sound when the flute player blows into it, it is not working properly. The properness of something that began to exist is absolutely dependent upon what it was made to be, and something can’t be said to be working or behaving properly if it wasn’t made to be anything. Whether or not my reader holds belief in God, it must be acknowledged that the Speaker’s crucial assumptions about the voice -- the assumptions that the voice is an instrument and gift that can and should be used properly – depends upon the existence of a good God: a God that gives us a voice and lets us freely speak.

Of course, the flute can’t simply make any noise for us to claim is it operating properly, and neither can our voices. Indeed, some noises can come from the flute which are unpleasant and others which make music, similar to how some sounds that come from our tongue sink the soul and others promote health. In other words, to be used properly, the flute must be working and the flute player must be playing particular notes. Similarly, a man must be able to speak and speak well for his voice to be properly used. Though we can freely speak, there is a particular way our voice ought to be used. The question then becomes, what does it mean to speak well?

Though the Speaker assumed God’s existence to validate his seminar and instruction, to this question, he provides an answer that no respectable conception of God would affirm. The Speaker implies that the proper use of one’s voice is determined by aesthetics, and then he pronounces that one’s voice, with the help of his teaching, can and should increase one’s appeal to the world.

When we reflect upon what the Speaker assumes and implies to validate his teaching, along with his closing statement, we should see why the video as a whole, is really a disappointment – a diabolic dictum: After leaning on God to present the voice as a majestic and purposeful gift which ought to be used properly, the Speaker then (unintentionally or intentionally) implies speaking well is strictly contingent upon how one speaks, and then instructs the audience to follow his lead so they can glorify themselves. After presenting the voice as an instrument, which is played well when its pace, pauses, and other presentational features best captivate its hearers, the Speaker then implies the voice was made to uplift the person from which it comes, which appeals to man’s selfish desire to elevate himself to a place of high reputation and power. According to the Speaker’s Facebook page, this dictum is far from an afterthought, but indeed his overcharging goal, that is, to “teach people how to amplify the best parts of who they are.” To make matters worse, in another promotional video , the Speaker says the purpose of communicating well is to “negotiate whatever reality you desire.” In other words, the Speaker is saying his listeners should increase their appeal to the world so that they can get what whatever world they fancy – no matter the nature or consequence of what they want.

If the voice is indeed a gift, which we ought to continuously unwrap by endlessly learning how to communicate, what ought we to be truly saying?

Do we believe it should be used to elevate ourselves to great success, riches, and fame? Did God give us a voice to “amplify to the rest of the world the best parts of who we are” – to tell everyone how great we are -- so that they can give us whatever our heart desires, even though self-glorification is immoral and our desires can be selfish? How could we humans ever praise the greatness in others, which is more admirable and honorable than self-praise, if everyone we look at is already praising him or herself? If every person uses his voice to magnify what he believes to be the best parts of himself, to persuade others to give him what he wants, is this a beautiful symphony or clanging symbols? I think we can agree that a flute that makes no noise is better than one that is loud but plays no music --- and a perverted song is most dangerous when it sounds beautiful.

If our voices have a purpose, it is undeniable that Something constructed our bodies, lungs, and minds so that we can speak meaningful sounds, but if we proceed to use our voices to promote the best parts of ourselves to get what we want, we lead our listeners to believe that we are the center of the universe – that our being and desires are more important than the very Will and Voice that brought the universe and our "best parts" into existence -- which is logically backwards and morally repugnant. From the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks, and we say we are greater than our Maker if we use our voices to glorify ourselves and not our Maker.

But on what grounds could we claim that the best parts of ourselves are greater than what made us, and even greater than the standard by which we can be said to be great? Of course, such a disposition can only be justified if we come from a universe that began without a cause and produced life through unguided forces and random mutations, in which case, the human voice is not a gift and has no proper function. Self-glorification could be justified within an atheistic worldview, since this worldview presents the voice as the unintended effect of aimless evolution and the persons that behold them with no innate responsibility to speak with humility; however, it is indefensible (unjustifiable) within a worldview that assumes God’s existence, like the Speaker does. The Speaker says he has the skill to help others speak well but speaking out of both sides of one’s mouth is not speaking well, which is what the Speaker is doing when he leans on God to establish the credibility of his case, and then encourages his audience to pursue a reality without Him.

Of course, it is worth noting that if one would like to surreptitiously assume God to validate one’s stance in life, while ultimately subscribing to atheism and self-worship, though one might be able to justify self-glorification, one will inevitably find himself in a circle of cognitive dissonance. And the circular outline is this: though he claims he is greater than whatever caused him to exist, he must also admit that if he is right, then the standard by which he admires himself simply appears out of nowhere and disappears after he dies, with no explanation for its undeniable existence, its imposing convictions, and how it reliably establishes what is best and worse. In other words, if the atheist assumes God’s existence for his advantage, he must nonetheless admit that the very standard by which he justifies self-glorification can provide no justification for why he should trust it to point him to what is greatest, particularly since the effect is greater than the cause, which leaves him uncertain of everything.

What is worse than the cognitive dissonance that arises from borrowing theistic capital to fund atheistic (godless) commitments, however, is the world that emerges when people live how the Speaker encourages them to. For a world in which people give persuasive speeches about how great they are -- a world in which people assume the existence of their Creator to believe they have a purpose, and then rid of Him to live for themselves -- would never lead to human flourishing.

If humans have removed the idea of their Creator, the Essence from which they come and the Standard by which they sense what is proper and perfect, what hope do they have to reach the Perfection for which they yearn? If they’ve removed from their minds the Source of Perfection for which they yearn and ought to follow, won’t they inevitably move away from the purpose for which they were made while their minds excuse them of their imperfect choices? Those who believe that to speak well is simply to convince others of how great they are can only conceive of that which doesn’t actually exist, which is their progress and fruitful future, while they blind themselves to the reality of their digressing souls. They dwell on the ascent that is fueled by their selfish desires without a marker to know they are actually falling. In the end, they are unable to know the truth that will set them free from the jumbled and incoherent lies that they are the greatest and will improve if they glorify themselves. “They utter speech, and speak insolent things; All the workers of iniquity boast in themselves” (Ps. 94:4).

As can be seen in this video I’m critiquing, if God is only assumed to start the pursuit of learning, but not explicitly acknowledged, the teacher can slip in commands contrary to God's nature without the student recognizing the contradiction, particularly if the command scratches the student's itching ears. The student is tricked at the beginning into believing he's on the path of truth when he hears statements that assumes God’s existence, because God is indeed the only sufficient grounding to any moral or metaphysical proposition. However, because God was only assumed to establish the path and not the starting point of the journey, and because men tend to get off on the wrong foot, the student is now exploring a path he was never meant to walk, and he can't look back and see that the tasty looking fruit that he is now facing was forbidden at the very beginning.

There is so much power in the name of God, one mustn’t even say it, but simply imply it, to strengthen one’s story. Like the Speaker, he can grab the attention of his listeners by simply starting his speech in the middle of a story that could have only begun if God existed; and because he never gives credit where credit is due, he can then convince his listeners to follow him to the alluring but ungodly destination of self-glorification. Even though his story couldn't logically exist without the existence of God, he disregards (forgets) Him entirely in the end because he never acknowledged His existence at the beginning. Consequently, he leads his listeners into the groundless, chaotic, and dangerous abyss, fueled and funded by self-interest.

I believe many of humanity’s problems are somewhat caused and perpetuated by improper communication, and if everyone communicates like this Speaker, and cosigns his closing comment and social media tag line, we will certainty create more problems for ourselves. To be clear, I recognize that this Speaker may be unaware of his own assumptions and the consequences of his final recommendation and truly trying to help others. In the few videos I’ve seen, the Speaker even exemplifies and teaches some good communication behaviors, like proper pauses and tone adjustments to emphasize important points and exercises to sharpen conversational skills. Moreover, this Speaker is hardly peculiar to my concern and critique. Indeed, he is one of many voices which (perhaps unintentionally) assume a good Creator to present the premise that there is some code to crack to obtain the “good life,” only to then remove Him to recommend their hearers use the code for their consumption. These voices ring similar to the prodigal son (before he repented), who took the lot given to him by his father, without saying thank you, spent it all on pleasure, and found himself empty. As the story goes for whoever lives by this code, such a lifestyle ends in dissatisfaction, for satisfaction is found when we live for the purpose for which we were made, and self-worship is not the reason for which God created us. Gifts are good, but they become spoiled if not received with gratitude and used properly.

If we are to assume God’s existence to verify the belief that our voice is a gift, which ought to be used properly, we must also assume God cares about what we actually say. Otherwise, we must ultimately reduce our own words to insignificant symbols, no matter the eloquence with which we’ve spoken them. What man can believe he has a voice to be a good storyteller, and yet also believe it does not matter what story he tells? As one reads in Proverbs, there is power in the tongue, but the proper use of the tongue goes well beyond presentation. Indeed, the human voice, which can convey powerful meaning through language, can be properly or improperly used, but the appropriateness of what comes out of one's mouth is not solely determined by how one sounds, but also by the exact words – the validity and meaning -- that come out of one's mouth. A great speech needs more than great pauses and presentation, but also true words that back a good cause; a good song needs more than a good singer: it needs good lyrics that elevate what is worthy to be praised.

With gratitude deep in our hearts, might we properly tune our voices to the Will that made them, for the sake of what’s good, opposed to seducing others to give us whatever we want – to “negotiate whatever reality we desire”? With reason ordering our thoughts, might we try to reconcile our assumptions and conclusions, for the sake of what’s true, regardless of our feelings, and ask God to help us believe the truth is good? With humility softening our hearts, might we confess we need God in more ways than we can count, so that we might have hope to become how we long to be, which is more than we can become on our own?

We should learn how to speak well because our voices are gifts and there is Something worth speaking about, but “to seek one’s glory is not glory” (Prov. 26:27b). Our voices were made to speak truth, no less than they were made to sound beautiful, and the beautiful truth is that God doesn’t give us what we deserve because His love covers a multitude of sins, so He deserves the praise. If we develop beautiful ways of speaking, may we not try to amplify the greatest parts of ourselves to negotiate whatever reality we desire. Instead, may we amplify the name of the greatest One there is, who suffered so that our joy might be full. May we use our voices to glorify the One who gave us voices and the freedom to speak forever,

“Let every instrument be tuned for praise,

Let all rejoice who have a voice to raise,

And may God give us faith to sing always,

Alleluia!”

(1971, Green, “When in Our Music God is Glorified")

“Make a joyful shout to the Lord, all you lands!

Serve the Lord with gladness;

Come before His presence with singing.

Know that the Lord, He is God;

It is He who has made us, and not we ourselves;

We are His people and the sheep of His pasture.

Enter into His gates with thanksgiving,

And into His courts with praise.

Be thankful to Him, and bless His name.

For the Lord is good;

His mercy is everlasting,

And His truth endures to all generations.” (Ps. 100:1-5)