It seems like a good place to start is with the dictionary. The "simple" definition of rant is:
": to talk loudly and in a way that shows anger : to complain in a way that is unreasonable"
We also see:
: "to talk in a noisy, excited, or declamatory manner" "to scold vehemently"
"to talk loudly and wildly "
"to talk loudly and wildly "
Related Words assault, attack, broadside, invective, lambasting, lashing, tongue-lashing, vituperation; berating, chewing out, rebuke, abuse, castigation, censure, condemnation, criticism, denunciation; belittlement, deprecation, depreciation, disparagement, dissing; excoriation, execration, revilement;
The first thread I note is that most of the definitions of rant imply that it is spoken and at a high volume. Obviously, if one sticks strictly with the literal definition it is incredibly difficult to rant using the printed word. Now, I realize that's nitpicking. Just as obviously one could type ones rant using ALL CAPS AND LOTS OF EXCLAMATION MARKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! This certainly achieves the same goal.
The second thread I note is that if one looks at the definition as well as the synonyms there is a sense in which a rant is out of control or "unreasonable". One of the examples used on the dictionary is that of a patron who berates a service provider for bad service. Clearly anyone who raises their voice to a waiter, for example, about bad service is not engaging in reasoned thoughtful helpful criticism. If one looks at the synonyms one can't help but notice that so many of them involve lack of respect, demeaning, or what amounts to a verbal assault. Again, these kinds of things don't lead one to conclude that a rant is particularly edifying, nor is it something that involves controlling ones self.
I also find it interesting that the word rant is very often paired with the word rave (rant and rave), if one looks at the word rave one finds that it adds elements of "delirium" "irrationality" "wildness" and "violence". As we look at this context, it seems as if the term rant is moving further and further from anything positive.
To be clear, I'm not suggesting that it is impossible to have a rant that does not incorporate the negative characteristics of the definition, the synonyms, and it's connection with the term rave, but it sure sounds like it would be difficult to engage in a positive rant.
One question that comes to mind is "Given the negative baggage associated with the term rant, what positive result does one hope to achieve with a rant?".
Sure, ranting at a waiter might get you a free meal, but will it really help the waiter be a better waiter? Aren't there more constructive positive ways to express dissatisfaction? Does ranting at a waiter make you a better human being?
What about on a bigger scale? Does ranting about policy help? Does "angrily" and "loudly" complaining in a way that is "unreasonable" really help bring about social change?
Does anyone really think that Rosa Parks and the civil rights movement would have been better served had she stood on the bus and "Loudly, angrily, and unreasonably" ranted about giving up her seat?
How about John Perkins? Here is one of those little knows figures of the civil rights movement who among other things had a fork tine stuck up his nose by a policeman causing permanent damage. Surely he had plenty of reason to rant, but did he?
I've heard ranting compared to the imprecatory Psalms, but I'm not sure that those Psalms quite reach the level of loss of control that the term rant seems to suggest. Given that, without some intensive study of specifics including the historical context I wouldn't dream of making any sort of definitive statement.
Again, granting that it is theoretically possible for a "positive" rant, one wonders why anyone would choose to engage in this type of outburst beyond the simple desire to vent. I understand that, I understand that sometimes it just helps to let all the frustration and anger and fear and uncertainty out, I've done it. But I've always seen this as something done in private in order to get things out and then to try to deal with them in a more rational manner. (That's just me, maybe you think subjecting others to your explosions is healthy and good, I don't. Excepting maybe counseling or therapy where the intent is to have someone help you to understand and deal with whatever spews out during the rant)
In closing, I can see that there is a time and a place for a rant. I can even grant that it could be done in a "positive" way. But what I can't understand is why one would commit ones rant to paper (or a blog, or Facebook, or Twitter) and expect it to lead to a positive outcome. I can't understand how a "wild" "unreasonable" "angry" screed posted to social media accomplishes anything beyond providing the ranter the ability to share their "unreasonable" "wild" stream of consciousness verbal vomit with a bunch of people who will probably not be particularly affirming. So, by all means, rant away. If you think that a "wild" unreasonable" "loud" "angry" outburst is more appropriate than a calm more reasoned approach, be my guest. If you think that calling those you disagree with names is a helpful appropriate way to persuade, then by all means, do so. If you think that a graceless rant is more productive that extending grace to those you disagree with, go for it.
Just don't be surprised when you fail to win friends and influence people.
22 comments:
FYI, I've had the luxury of some time this morning to spend on various blog related things, the rest of the day and the next couple of days look like there will be less time for this. So, if I don't get right back or if I just have time for a quick response here or there, don't get bent and start ranting. I'll get back when I have time.
having said that, this post really doesn't lend itself to much discussion, I've said my piece and don't see that there is much more to be said.
One more FYI
A couple of weeks ago I was in a minor car accident, where someone stopped behind me as I was backing out of a parking space, the driver way over reacted and began to rant at me even though I had willingly given him all of my insurance information and contact information. I certainly could have justified ranting back at him and given the circumstances many people would have. I chose not to as I just couldn't see any up side.
I am currently dealing with a situation in which someone who I supervise at work has lied to me, and as a result tried to get me to submit a false document, as well as some other things which would justify his being fired. Today things came to a head and I am going to have to deal with this more directly than I have been. Again, I could certainly justify a bit of ranting, even if it was more for show to demonstrate how serious this is. However, I just don"t see anything positive coming from that response and will probably choose a more measured reasonable route.
Just some real life examples of decisions I've made when many would consider a rant appropriate.
I'm not sure that those Psalms quite reach the level of loss of control that the term rant seems to suggest.
One of the famous imprecatory Psalms, where the psalmist is complaining about their exile/oppression in Babylon, he says...
How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones
Against the rock.
Now, that, to me, seems to be the very definition of a rant. He is complaining about this unjust situation and is so unhappy about it that he calls for killing babies in a most cruel manner. That is complaining in a way that is horribly unreasonable.
Now, I don't care if you think that perfectly fits the definition of "rant," nor am I hung up on needing to call it a rant, but perhaps you can expand your mind enough to see how others might reach that conclusion and not be totally off-base.
So, I would guess you would agree that this is not a call for a Godly policy of killing babies, but instead, a sort of venting or complaining to God - even in a monstrous way, taken as a literal idea. So, if that is the case, then do you and I agree that, just as the Psalms and other places provide examples of people venting (ranting, whatever you want to call it) that are not Godly behaviors, but just an example of a normal - even healthy - human response to an atrocious situation? Or do you think the psalmist was wrong to vent/blow off steam/rant/pray in this manner?
I, for one, don't. I just think it's important to keep in mind that it's one thing to vent in this manner and it's another thing to confuse the venting for fact or for policy.
perhaps, it would be helpful if you actually read my comment before you commented further.it appears as if you just felt compelled to find something to disagree with and randomly picked a sentence. Have you read what I wrote, you might have noticed that I begin the sentence with I just don't know. I did that to indicate that without further study I don't have enough information. you are responding as if I have staked out a definitive position, when I quite clearly have not. Once again, it might be helpful if you respond to what I actually say as opposed to what you think I say.
given the fact that I have been quite clear about not having studied the subject enough to offer an opinion, I am certainly not going to form an opinion based on your selective and out-of-context snippet from one psalm.
it seems like it would be foolish for me to draw any sort of definitive conclusion from one small paraphrased out of context line. if you would like to construct your theology based on taking paraphrases of verses out of context please don't let me stop you, but I would prefer not to.
given the fact that I have been quite clear about not having studied the subject enough to offer an opinion, I am certainly not going to form an opinion based on your selective and out-of-context snippet from one psalm.
it seems like it would be foolish for me to draw any sort of definitive conclusion from one small paraphrased out of context line. if you would like to construct your theology based on taking paraphrases of verses out of context please don't let me stop you, but I would prefer not to.
I did that to indicate that without further study I don't have enough information. you are responding as if I have staked out a definitive position
I apologize if that is how it sounded to you. That was not my intent. I was merely offering my reasoning in thinking why it sounds like "rant" is an accurate term for some biblical verses. I was not trying to indicate that you had staked out a definitive position. Again, sorry if it seemed that way. I did not say it, nor did I intend it in my words.
But what I can't understand is why one would commit ones rant to paper (or a blog, or Facebook, or Twitter) and expect it to lead to a positive outcome.
Without commenting on your opinions on anything, in just addressing this line of text, I would say that people vent, sometimes, not to change things but to blow off steam. In prayer, in groups of friends, even with people who disagree, we as humans sometimes just want to blow off steam and, when it's about something that is serious like injustice or oppression, it is understandable. Thus, the "positive" that comes out of it is just the releasing of that sense of anger at an injustice.
For instance, God does not appear to have any problem with the psalmist (or us) venting about an enemy, even to the point of saying, "I wish they were dead! I wish even their babies were killed!" Even if that isn't healthy or moral policy, sometimes venting helps our psyche. Or at least may feel like it does (I'm not sure that research supports it... the data is conflicting, I believe).
The point is, people don't vent/rant to affect positive change, necessarily. They vent to blow off steam, to cry out at injustice.
I would most likely agree if anyone were to say "Venting is not an effective way to affect change," but that isn't the purpose, it seems to me.
Well since I pretty much said venting isn't anew effective way to effect change I'm glad you agree.
Having said that, why would someone publish a rant on social media if not to attempt to either provoke or attempt to change.
But we're back to the fact that I addressed this in my original post.
The problem you have is even if one can justify calling one out of context paraphrase of a Psalm a rant, that still doesn't support your hunch that ranting i's normal and appropriate.
Finally I'm pretty sure that one of the fruits of the spirit is self control I'd suggest that a believer should not be engaging in any behavior that almost by definition involves a degree of loss of self control.
Well since I pretty much said venting isn't anew effective way to effect change I'm glad you agree.
Having said that, why would someone publish a rant on social media if not to attempt to either provoke or attempt to change.
But we're back to the fact that I addressed this in my original post.
The problem you have is even if one can justify calling one out of context paraphrase of a Psalm a rant, that still doesn't support your hunch that ranting i's normal and appropriate.
Finally I'm pretty sure that one of the fruits of the spirit is self control I'd suggest that a believer should not be engaging in any behavior that almost by definition involves a degree of loss of self control.
Earlier you referred to "The point",, I'm wondering how you can justify making a blanket statement about what people intend when they rant publicly. Certainly your "point" might be true for you, but I see nothing that would allow anyone to make that sort of sweeping blanket generalization.
I would think that if someone goes to the effort to rant in public that they are hoping for something beyond simply venting.
Either way, I'm not qualified to make that sort of sweeping generalization with the same degree of certainty you have.
why would someone publish a rant on social media if not to attempt to either provoke or attempt to change.
I published my provocative poem about Bush and his invasion (the one you oft quote) not to affect change but to moan and lament what I perceived to be a great injustice and a dangerous/harmful policy. No doubt, the same reasons that the psalmists and poets of the Bible wrote their laments.
I would ask, do you think it is wrong to lament? Even publicly?
I don't and I think the witness of the Bible would say the biblical authors (or Author, if you prefer) didn't.
that still doesn't support your hunch that ranting i's normal and appropriate.
Well, it is certainly normal in the sense that is normative to the human condition. Humans have always thus vented. I, for one, don't think it is inappropriate in and of itself.
Which gets back to my question to you: Do you think it is wrong to thus vent/rant? You initially said you didn't have a problem with ranting, in theory, but now it sounds like maybe you do? If so, well, we disagree.
But then, I would ask what do you do with all the vindictive/abusive prayers and curses ("rants") in the Bible? Do you think those people were wrong for doing them? If so, that's fine. Some believers do think that (and, of course, others don't think it was wrong to pray for babies' heads to be bashed in). I would respectfully disagree with both positions.
I'm wondering how you can justify making a blanket statement about what people intend when they rant publicly.
Fair enough. You're probably right. There probably are people who rant publicly because they think that sort of abusive language is the way to bully people into agreeing with them. I would hope that most people who engage in that sort of abusive/"rant-y" language would be able to admit, "No, I'm not really calling Bush a monster..." "No, I don't really think Obama is out to destroy America..." etc, but I certainly don't know that as a fact.
I stand corrected.
"I would ask, do you think it is wrong to lament? Even publicly?"
In poor taste, sure. Unnecessarily provocative, probably. Wrong, no. I've never suggested that ranting is objectively wrong, just that it's not horribly productive.
"Do you think it is wrong to thus vent/rant? You initially said you didn't have a problem with ranting, in theory, but now it sounds like maybe you do?"
I've addressed this in my post. I wouldn't say it's objectively wrong, but for the most part (with the exceptions I noted in the post), I don't see it as particularly valuable or useful. I have concerns as I outlined and I think that the unreasonable/lack of self control issues are a concern. But objectively wrong, no.
I've answered your question about the prayers in the Bible. At this point, I don't feel like I can come to a conclusion without actually looking at the specific passages that concern you in context. To do anything else would be irresponsible and counterproductive. I would also suggest that given your preconceived notions about God and violence as opposed to most of the rest of historic Christian thought, that you would disagree with anything I might come up with unless that coincided with your preconceptions. So, I question the worth of the exercise knowing that most likely you will dismiss and conclusion contrary to your predisposition out of hand.
How many times do you need to ask the "Are they wrong" question? Or how about letting me answer it after you ask the first time before you ask it several more times in the same comment. I'm answering your questions, and trying to be intentional about getting them all, but if you could avoid asking the same question multiple times in the same comment so I at least have a chance to answer it the first time, that would be great.
No hurry. I was operating under the presumption you were already familiar with places in the Bible where curses/imprecatory praying/"ranting" sorts of behaviors occurred. If you're not familiar with them, no problem, no hurry. Take your time and let me know when you have read more.
I would offer you that, in my reading, the thinking tends to break down into three or four categories on at least the imprecatory psalms...
1. They are like other examples of people talking smack/doing bad in the Bible - that they do it and we read it in the Bible does not mean it is an endorsement of the behavior. Abraham offering to "give" his wife to another man (pretending that she's his sister instead of wife), for instance, is often pointed to as behavior that happens in the Bible but that isn't an endorsement of the behavior by God;
2. They are instances of just what I've been talking about: People blowing off steam/in deep lamentation crying out to God to destroy an oppressive enemy and their presence in the Bible is an indication that God understands and is fine with our pain but, as with point one, this doesn't necessarily indicate God's blessing of the actual curse (ie, to bash babies against rocks);
3. That God does approve sometimes the notion of the sort of vengeful behavior that is being called for in the curses (I don't think this is a wide-spread belief, but it is offered as a possible alternative sometimes);
And maybe one or two other possibilities. Our church has done several studies on these sorts of Psalms/passages in the Bible over the last few years and for the most part, we fall under the 2nd option as being the most rational, moral and biblically sound explanation of what to do with these sorts of passages.
But by all means, look into it yourself.
Dan,
I am familiar with the existence of such passages, but if it makes you feel better to imply otherwise that's fine. Having said that I have no reason or desire to engage in the amount of study necessary to deal with a significant number of these passages in context. At this point I have a significant amount of study on other Biblical topics that are more relevant. So don't hold your breath, and don't assume that your paraphrase of one passage has any value to this discussion at all.
As far as your categories, I have not interest in them and I have very little confidence in the quality of your willingness to approach them with an open mind and free from your preconceptions. I'm sure you are very happy with your opinions on this, but if I was going to invest time in this I'd want to start fresh.
But, I'm not, because I have no real reason to validate your need to label these as rants and by doing so validate your desire to engage in rants and to see yourself as being validated by precedent.
I've been quite clear about what I think about this subject, mostly that I see many more negatives than positives to engaging in rant, and that I find this desire to label these passages as rant puzzling, but if it's that important to you then I'm not going to stop you.
I am familiar with the existence of such passages, but if it makes you feel better to imply otherwise that's fine.
No insult intended. I was just responding to your suggestion that you weren't familiar enough with the topic to offer opinions. Sorry if I sounded insulting, that was not my intent.
Likewise, I have no need to label these passages as rants. I'm merely offering the suggestion that they seem TO ME to fit the definition or that at the least it is not an unreasonable characterization.
My main points, as always, have only been to say that
1. as the rule, I think we need to be more grace-full in how we talk with one another and,
2. at the same time, I think there is a time for everything, including "rants" or blowing off steam or imprecatory prayers or all such less-grace-full times in our lives
3. The main thing is that we should be prepared to distinguish between the two and that hopefully, we'd spend the vastly greater part of our time in a spirit of grace.
I would not suggest anyone live there lives in constant outrage because, as you note, it does not help them improve the situation and additionally, it mostly only harms them. But I'm not prepared to say that there is no room for "rants" in our lives. This seems reasonable to me, but you are free to disagree.
Peace.
I guess I might just ask you if you understand where I'm coming from on the ability to distinguish between the two. If anyone reads my Bush poem/prayer and then asks me, "Man, do you really think Bush is a monster?" I'd easily be able to answer, "No, of course not. He is a man striving to do what is right, I have no doubt of that or of his Christianity nor his sincerity... I just think his policies were horribly, harmfully wrong and that innocent people died because of his policies..." And hopefully, when people on the other side rant about how Obama wants to destroy the US (I've had a beloved family member make the case) and that liberals hate the US and other such "rant-y" phrases, hopefully, when pressed, they could distinguish between what they might say in a rant vs reality (and that I, her beloved family member who is "liberal" of course do not hate the US, nor does Obama actually want to destroy it - that those are "rant" words, not reality and that she can distinguish between the two). It is in the ability to distinguish between the two that we find grace, I'd posit.
Do you agree with this point I've been making?
For someone who says they aren't invested in labeling these passages as rant you are certainly expending a significant degree of effort to do just that.
I understand the point you've at tempted to make, I think I even understand your need to justify the times when you engage in some of your vile graceless rants by linking them and yourself to Psalmist as a way to validate your ranting.
Beyond that I've said all I have to say, you've not addressed many of my problems with ranting, and I don't expect you to, but I see no reason to continue to put things out there that will not be dealt with.
So, if it makes you feel better to engage in loud unreasonable violent rants go ahead. It just undermines your calls for grace.
I'm smiling, Craig, thanks.
All I did about "rants" was write a post whose main point was about grace, but that allowed for the very human idea of "ranting" or blowing off steam. You then went on to my blog and attacked that idea where we went back and for a great deal trying to figure out if you don't agree with the notion of rants yourself and back and forth it went, all the while me making the case for grace and just offering up the very human and biblical habit of ranting and not outright condemning it. On and on it went because you were chasing that rabbit, demanding answers, which I kept providing and eventually leading you to make your own post about it. All I have done about "ranting" is in response to where you have driven the conversation.
You can't make my phrase about ranting a central point of contention in various attacks on my personal integrity and then say that I am the one who is going on about ranting. I'm just trying to answer your questions/clear up your misunderstandings/explain myself in response to your attacks. If you had not brought up the constant attacks, Craig, I would not be continually answering your questions and clarifying my position. It would have been one line as basically an aside in an essay primarily about grace, if it weren't for you, Craig.
So, I don't know that I need to address your problems with ranting, do I, since I share some of the same points? And, off and on, you seem to agree with at least part of what I've said and you apparently don't have a position on the biblical examples of ranting/cursing/blowing off steam/lamenting as it relates to us today, so what is this about then?
"I'm just trying to answer your questions/clear up your misunderstandings/explain myself in response to your attacks. If you had not brought up the constant attacks, Craig, I would not be continually answering your questions and clarifying my position."
You mean other than when you were not answering questions.
You asked me a question, I wrote an entire post answering you, you have nitpicked a couple of minor points but otherwise not engaged in anything beyond trying to justify your position on rants.
As to our post on grace, now that you've "modified your position", maybe it would be more accurate to say it was a post about grace, except when it's time for a bitter graceless rant.
"All I have done about "ranting" is in response to where you have driven the conversation."
You must mean when I spent hours answering dozens of your questions.
"...various attacks on my personal integrity..."
Really, attacks on your personal integrity? This from the person who went on and on about how I'm on the same intellectual level as a 4th grader. Rich.
"So, I don't know that I need to address your problems with ranting, do I, since I share some of the same points?"
You asked for an answer to a question, you got your answer. Usually when someone answers one of my questions I interact with the answer, not ignore it.
"And, off and on, you seem to agree with at least part of what I've said and you apparently don't have a position on the biblical examples of ranting/cursing/blowing off steam/lamenting as it relates to us today, so what is this about then?"
I don't know, but why don't you just pick up both sides of the conversation. It will save me time, and it will allow you to continue to deal with what you want me to have said rather than what I have said.
Haven't had the time to read through all of the above comments, but when at the other thread I came upon the idea of Imprecatory Psalms, I did some research to affirm my understanding. I believe this article not only explains it nicely, but doesn't indicate they can reasonably be called "rants". From this I find the following that clears things up a bit:
"Probably the most important key to understanding this issue is this: David is not praying to God out of malice and vindictiveness against someone he dislikes personally. It is not a matter of personal revenge; rather, these “harsh” statements reflect David’s awareness of God’s justice and his intolerance for sin."
and this:
"This is not a desire for personal revenge; rather it is a comfort that the will of God shall prevail."
Could it be that Dan is using these Psalms as a means by which he can rationalize ranting as an acceptable behavior after the fact? Hmmm.
Post a Comment